TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Key v. Robison

H. M. Key and E. O. Sheffield, in error v. Alex. J. Robison, administrator, in error

Key v. Robison, 29 Ga. 34 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1859
Judges
Stephens
Citations
29 Ga. 34
Headnotes
Where a common-law suit is pending, and the defendant in it, files a bill in the same county, against the plaintiff, who resides in a different county, asking relief and injunction, the jurisdiction is good for the injunction, but not for the relief.
Summary
In Equity, in Dooly Superior Court. Decision by Judge Xamar, at Chambers, January, 1859. Homer M. Key and Edward O. Sheffield filed their bill against Alexander J. Robison, administrator of Seymour R. Bonner, deceased, to enjoin certain actions at law5 pending in Dooly Superior Court, against complainants, on certain promissory notes. These notes were given by complainants to Bonner in his lifetime, in part of the purchase money of three lots of land, sold to or bought for them by Bonner, situated in the county of Worth. Bonner resided in the county of Muscogee, where his administrator,. Robinson, the plaintiff in the actions .at law, also resides; ' complainants, who were the defendants at law, reside in the county of Dooly. The Judge refused his sanction to the bill and to grant the injunction prayed for, on the grounds that the defendant Robison, did not reside in the county of Dooly, but in the county of Muscogee, and that the bill not only prayed to enjoin the actions at law pending in Dooly county, but sought a decree against the defendant, to set aside and cancel the alleged fraudulent sale, and to compel him to refund money-paid and expended in the action of ejectment, wherein one of the lots of land had been lost. That it was not merely a bill for injunction and discovery, but also for relief. To which refusal and decision, counsel for complainants excepted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

— Stephens J.

By the Court.

delivering the opinion.

The only question here is as to the jurisdiction, the defendant in the bill not residing in the county where it was brought. The bill asks relief and an injunction. In Dew vs. Hamilton, 23 Ga. Reports, this Court held, that the jurisdiction was good in just such a case, for the injunction. It had frequently been ruled before, that it was not good for relief. We think in this case, the bill ought to have been retained for the injunction, but not for the relief. As the Court dismissed it altogether, the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1918: 119182026peak 1918 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Home Mixture Guano Co. v. Woolfolk97 S.E. 637 (Ga. 1918)

Most recent

  1. Home Mixture Guano Co. v. Woolfolk97 S.E. 637 (Ga. 1918)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list