TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taylor Co. v. Williams

Taylor Company v. Williams

Taylor Co. v. Williams, 77 S.E. 386 (Ga. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 1, 1913
Judges
Atkinson
Citations
77 S.E. 386139 Ga. 5811913 Ga. LEXIS 516
Summary
Petition for injunction. Before Judge Hammond. Richmond superior court. April 9, 1912.

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

Opinion of the Court — Atkinson

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

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 had 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.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1914: 11915: 21921: 11923: 11924: 11934: 11935: 11937: 11938: 11953: 11959: 11976: 119142026peak 1915 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Herrin & West215 F. 250 (N.D. Ga. 1914)
  2. Mims v. Dixie Finance Corp.426 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Ga. 1976)
  3. Saul v. Bowers117 S.E. 86 (Ga. 1923)
  4. Livingston v. Epsten-Roberts Co.177 S.E. 79 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  5. Strickland Hardware Co. v. Fletcher110 S.E. 229 (Ga. 1921)
  6. Morris Fertilizer Co. v. White, McCurdy & Co.122 S.E. 692 (Ga. 1924)

Most recent

  1. Mims v. Dixie Finance Corp.426 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Ga. 1976)
  2. Roquemore v. Goldstein112 S.E.2d 24 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959)
  3. Novak v. O'Neal201 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1953)
  4. Lyle v. Roswell Store Inc.200 S.E. 702 (Ga. 1938)
  5. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Hirsch192 S.E. 435 (Ga. 1937)
  6. Rosenthal v. Langley179 S.E. 383 (Ga. 1935)

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