Tanner v. Mutual Benefit Building Ass'n

20 S.E. 499, 95 Ga. 528
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 26, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 S.E. 499 (Tanner v. Mutual Benefit Building Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tanner v. Mutual Benefit Building Ass'n, 20 S.E. 499, 95 Ga. 528 (Ga. 1894).

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

Suit was brought on a promissory note containing the usual waiver of homestead, dated Februaiy 1,1898. Defendant pleaded: The note is illegal and void, beiug a •contract against the policy of the law, in that it contains a waiver of homestead or exemption right of defendant or his family, as against this debt or any renewal thereof. His wife had filed in the court of ordinary a schedule for the exemption of realty and personalty, under the •code, §2040 et seq., for the benefit of her family; and in the schedule particularly set fórth the land covered by .a mortgage made by defendant to secure the note sued •on; which schedule was approved and recorded on October 7,1878. The property so set apart is in the nature •of a trust estate; and nothing appears in plaintiff’s declaration to authorize a'judgment of the city court against said trust property. Defendant’s wife has pending in the superior coui’t a petition filed by her, for injunction and other relief; which court, having full jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter of this controversy, should be allowed to retain jurisdiction, to do full and complete justice, etc. This plea was stricken on demurrer, and judgment rendered by the court for the plaintiff'. The declaration contained a count for $6.10 taxes paid by plaintiff at defendant’s request. By inadvertence this sum was included in the amount of the judgment rendered, the only question argued and decided by the court below being on the plea. The bill of exceptions was certified in vacation. Johnson & Pledger and Thomas & Thomas, for plaintiff in error. James H. Gilbert, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Faust v. General Finance & Loan Co.
84 S.E.2d 118 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Brenau College v. Mincey
22 S.E.2d 322 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 S.E. 499, 95 Ga. 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanner-v-mutual-benefit-building-assn-ga-1894.