The Justices Of The Inferior Court v. Croft
| Decision Date | 31 July 1855 |
| Docket Number | No. 64.,64. |
| Citation | 18 Ga. 473 |
| Parties | The Justices of the Inferior Court of Dougherty County, plaintiff in error. vs. George W. Croft,defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
In Equity, in Dougherty Superior Court. Decision by Judge Perkins, at Chambers, 19th January, 1855.
George W. Croft filed a bill, alleging that he had contracted with the Justices of the Inferior Court of Dougherty County, to lay the bricks in a new Court House, by a written agreement; that he went to considerable expense to prepare to do the work, and was proceeding to do it, when the Justices withdrew all of the hands which they contracted to furnish, and all materials, after complainant had laid 150, 000 bricks; that he continued in possession of the work, but had been deprived of it by a possessory warrant; that the Justices falsely alleged that he was not executing the work according to the contract, and permitted one Batterson to take possession of the work, who was utterly unable to respond for damages to complainant; that, under the decision of the Supremo Court, he was not able to sue the Justices, and his only remedy was in Equity. The prayer was for au injunction. The Court granted the injunction, and this decision is assigned as error.
Issue was joined, with a protest, that a writ of error would not lie to a decision granting an injunction.
Strozier & Slaughter, for plaintiffs in error.
Warren & Warren, for defendants in error.
By the Court.—Starnes, J. delivering the opinion.
If the right of the complainant in this bill, to sue these Justices of the Inferior Court be admitted, still, this is not such a contract as should be enforced specifically. If the defendants are liable to be sued at all, for and on account of the same, they are liable in damages, and there is no necessity for the interference of a Court of Equity in such a case.
It is, at most, a mere breach of a personal contract or covenant, and it is not shown that irreparable injury will result, unless the contract be specifically enforced.
It is true, that it is alleged, that Batterson is not able to respond for the damage which he may do, if he be allowed to proceed in the erection of the building. If this allegation have force, it is as a reason why he should be enjoined from proceeding to carry on the work in question—not as a reason why the contract should be specifically performed. It was made with the Justices of the Inferior Court; and if to be specifically performed, is to be performed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eickhoff v. Eickhoff
... ... Nos. S93A0932, S93X0933, S93A1017 and S93X1018 ... Supreme Court of Georgia ... Oct. 25, 1993 ... Reconsideration Denied Nov. 5, 1993 ... , a Court of Equity will not decree such specific performance." Justices of Inferior Court of Dougherty County v. Croft, 18 Ga. 473(1) (1855). The ... ...
-
Black v. American Vending Co., Inc.
...will result, unless the contract be specifically performed, a Court of Equity will not decree such specific performance." Justices, etc. v. Croft, 18 Ga. 473 (1885). The principle which will decide this issue is well stated in the headnote to Carolee v. Handelis, 103 Ga. 299, 29 S.E. 935 (1......
-
Grant-Jeter Co. v. American Real Estate Co.
...injury will result to the plaintiff. For this reason a court of equity will not decree specific performance of the contract. Justices v. Croft, 18 Ga. 473. Courts of equity will not generally undertake to enforce specific performance of contracts for personal services which are material or ......
-
Geriner v. The Branigar Organization, Inc.
...damages would be the appropriate remedy. See Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 263 Ga. 498, 500(2), 435 S.E.2d 914 (1993); Justices of Inferior Court v. Croft, 18 Ga. 473(1) (1855). Moreover, because the recreational facilities were sold to the Club, a decree of specific performance authorizing Geriner......