Washington & Lee University v. Suburban Development Co.

187 S.E. 647, 183 Ga. 130, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 181
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 19, 1936
DocketNo. 11429
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 187 S.E. 647 (Washington & Lee University v. Suburban Development Co.) 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
Washington & Lee University v. Suburban Development Co., 187 S.E. 647, 183 Ga. 130, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 181 (Ga. 1936).

Opinion

Hutcheson, Justice.

Wliere one brings a petition in equity seeking to enjoin a sale under power contained in a security deed given pursuant to a contract of loan, which, deed provides that in the event .the grantor fails to pay taxes and insurance on the property conveyed the loan may be declared due, alleging as grounds of injunction that the loan is usurious and that he does not owe any past-due taxes or insurance, because it is provided in the contract that certain moneys paid thereunder shall be applied to the payment of taxes and insurance, which contract also provides that in the event said moneys are not sufficient such provision shall not impair the right of the grantee to declare a default for the failure to keep the premises insured and to pay taxes thereon, and the petition prays for an accounting as to the proper application of said moneys, and offers to pay whatever sum may be found owing at the original due date of the loan, which is at a future time, but does not allege the amount of taxes and insurance or that the moneys paid were sufficient to pay the same, the petition fails to show that the loan is not in default; and there being no tender or offer to pay whatever sum might be found to be due in the event of default, the petition fails to set forth a cause of action. Wardlaw v. Woodruff, 178 Ga. 240 (173 S. E. 98); Liles v. Bank of Camden County, 151 Ga. 483 (107 S. E. [131]*131490), and eit. It follows that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the petition. Judgment reversed.

No. 11429. September 19, 1936. McDlreath, Scott, Duckworth & DuVall, for plaintiff in error. Spence & Spence, contra. All the Justices concur.

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

Related

O'KELLEY v. Evans
159 S.E.2d 418 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)
Northwest Atlanta Bank v. Manning
17 S.E.2d 547 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Harton v. Federal Land Bank
2 S.E.2d 62 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Suburban Development Co. v. Washington & Lee University
194 S.E. 173 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Sharpe v. City of Waycross
194 S.E. 522 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 S.E. 647, 183 Ga. 130, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-lee-university-v-suburban-development-co-ga-1936.