Woodburn v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Woodburn v. Smith

34 S.E. 167, 108 Ga. 815, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 469

DecidedAugust 2, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 34 S.E. 167 (Woodburn v. Smith) 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

Woodburn v. Smith, 34 S.E. 167, 108 Ga. 815, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 469 (Ga. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, J.

1. The nature of the present controversy is disclosed by the official report made of this case when here at the March term, 1895. See 96 Ga. 241.

2. At the hearing now under review, the defendant having shown by competent evidence that .the parties represented by the plaintiff as receiver were privies in estate with and claimed under certain persons against whom the defendant had, prior to the commencement of the present litigation, instituted an equitable proceeding setting up his ownership of the premises and praying for injunction, etc., wherein a restraining order which still remained of force had been duly granted, the trial judge properly charged the jury to the effect that if the parties represented by the receiver purchased the property in dispute pending such a proceeding against their vendors, the doctrine of lis pendens would apply and the present action would not be maintainable.

3. The verdict of the jury being in accord with the instructions thus given them, and the evidence as to this issue fully warranting their finding, the trial judge rightly declined to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Smith. Wilcox superior court. March term, 1898.

Cutts & Lawson and D. B. Nicholson, for plaintiff.

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

Fish, J.

1. The nature of the present controversy is disclosed by the official report made of this case when here at the March term, 1895. See 96 Ga. 241.

2. At the hearing now under review, the defendant having shown by competent evidence that .the parties represented by the plaintiff as receiver were privies in estate with and claimed under certain persons against whom the defendant had, prior to the commencement of the present litigation, instituted an equitable proceeding setting up his ownership of the premises and praying for injunction, etc., wherein a restraining order which still remained of force had been duly granted, the trial judge properly charged the jury to the effect that if the parties represented by the receiver purchased the property in dispute pending such a proceeding against their vendors, the doctrine of lis pendens would apply and the present action would not be maintainable.

3. The verdict of the jury being in accord with the instructions thus given them, and the evidence as to this issue fully warranting their finding, the trial judge rightly declined to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Smith. Wilcox superior court. March term, 1898.

Cutts & Lawson and D. B. Nicholson, for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.E. 167, 108 Ga. 815, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodburn-v-smith-ga-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack