Truitt v. American Savings Bank

Supreme Court of Georgia

Truitt v. American Savings Bank

166 S.E. 190, 175 Ga. 785, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 330

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1932

DocketNo. 8842

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 190 (Truitt v. American Savings Bank) 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

Truitt v. American Savings Bank, 166 S.E. 190, 175 Ga. 785, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 330 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Hnx, J.

Under the allegations of the petition, which áre taken as true on demurrer, the plaintiff has a lien on the property in controversy, superior to that of the defendant. He has an adequate remedy at law by [786]*786levy of Ills fi. fa. on the property, regardless of whether he levies before or after the defendant does. There was therefore no jurisdiction in a court of equity to enjoin the sale of the property under the power contained in the defendant’s deed; and the court did not err in dismissing the petition on demurrer.

No. 8842. October 13, 1932.

Judgment affirmed.

All 'the Justices concur, except Athvnson, J., absent. Jones, Fuller, Bussell & Clapp and Douglas M. Orr, for plaintiff. Clarice & Clarice, for defendant.

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

Hnx, J.

Under the allegations of the petition, which áre taken as true on demurrer, the plaintiff has a lien on the property in controversy, superior to that of the defendant. He has an adequate remedy at law by [786]*786levy of Ills fi. fa. on the property, regardless of whether he levies before or after the defendant does. There was therefore no jurisdiction in a court of equity to enjoin the sale of the property under the power contained in the defendant’s deed; and the court did not err in dismissing the petition on demurrer.

No. 8842. October 13, 1932.

Judgment affirmed.

All 'the Justices concur, except Athvnson, J., absent. Jones, Fuller, Bussell & Clapp and Douglas M. Orr, for plaintiff. Clarice & Clarice, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 190, 175 Ga. 785, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truitt-v-american-savings-bank-ga-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack