Taylor Co. v. Williams

77 S.E. 386, 139 Ga. 581, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 516
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 1, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 386 (Taylor Co. v. Williams) 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
Taylor Co. v. Williams, 77 S.E. 386, 139 Ga. 581, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 516 (Ga. 1913).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. Where an insolvent person files a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, and prays that property be set apart to him as exempt under homestead laws of this State, and upon such petition is adjudged a bankrupt and a trustee in bankruptcy is appointed, who sets apart to the bankrupt property as prayed, and duly files his report thereof in the court of bankruptcy, to which no exception is filed, the bankrupt has an assignable interest in the property so set apart, and it is lawful for him to assign the property in good faith for application to preexisting debts, although the assignment be made before expiration of the twenty days allowed under General Order No. 17 (Collier on Bankruptcy, 1067), within which to file exceptions.

2. In such a case, where creditors holding homestead-waiver notes of the bankrupt, relying on the validity of the homestead exemption, sought in a court of equity to enjoin the bankrupt from receiving the property so set apart and to have a receiver appointed, to the end that the property might be applied to the payment of the homestead-waiver notes, and on interlocutory hearing it appeared that the exempted property [582]*582had been assigned in the manner indicated in the preceding note, there was no error in denying the application for injunction and receiver.

March 1, 1913. Petition for injunction. Before Judge Hammond. Richmond superior court. April 9, 1912. H. M. Holden and P. 0. O’Gorman, for plaintiffs. 8. H. Myers and W. K. Miller, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Mims v. Dixie Finance Corp.
426 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Georgia, 1976)
Roquemore v. Goldstein
112 S.E.2d 24 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Novak v. O'Neal
201 F.2d 227 (Fifth Circuit, 1953)
Lyle v. Roswell Store Inc.
200 S.E. 702 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Hirsch
192 S.E. 435 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Rosenthal v. Langley
179 S.E. 383 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Livingston v. Epsten-Roberts Co.
177 S.E. 79 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Morris Fertilizer Co. v. White, McCurdy & Co.
122 S.E. 692 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Saul v. Bowers
117 S.E. 86 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Strickland Hardware Co. v. Fletcher
110 S.E. 229 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Hardee v. Bank of Donalsonville
86 S.E. 938 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Peppers v. Cauthen
84 S.E. 477 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
In re Herrin & West
215 F. 250 (N.D. Georgia, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 S.E. 386, 139 Ga. 581, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-co-v-williams-ga-1913.