Cabot v. Nathan Yarbor.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1859 |
| Citation | 27 Ga. 476 |
| Parties | Frederick M. Cabot, plaintiff in error. vs. Nathan Yarborough et al., defendants in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Attachment for contempt, from Floyd county. Decision by Judge Hammond, at February Term, 1858.
Frederick M. Cabot filed his bill in equity against Atkinson J. Hardin, Daniel F. Suryer, James M. Spullock, Nathan Yarborough, Dennis Hills and William Johnson, praying, amongst other things, for an "injunction to be directed to the said defendants, their agent and attorneys, commanding and enjoining them, and each of them, to cease all further prosecution of a certain claim case in said Superior Court, and also from selling, or otherwise disposing of, " the claimed "property, and to cease from the further appropriation of your orator's one-third of the rents of said property to their own use, until the other and further order of this Honorable Court in this behalf."
The bill was field the 5th August, 1858, and on the same day sanctioned by the Chancellor, and an injunction ordered to issue in the sum of one thousand dollars, "pursuant to the prayer in complainant's bill."
The injunction issued, directed to defendants commanding them, "that they, and each of them, their agents and employees, forthwith do desist their action of claim, " &c, as mentioned in said bill of complaint, until the further decree of this Court."
Served on Yarborough, Hills, Johnson, Spullock, and Hardin, 15th October, 1858, and on Suryer, 15th March, 1859.
At the February Term, 1859, of Floyd Superior Court, complainant, Cabot, moved for a rule nisi, against Spullock, Yarborough, Johnson and Hills, to show cause why they should not be attached for a contempt of the Court, for violating; said injunction. This motion was supported by the following affidavit of complainant:
Georgia, Floyd County.
Personally appeared F. M. Cabot, complainant, who being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that the bill filed by him was for the purpose, amongst other things, of restraining the defendants from "selling or otherwise disposing of" certain city or town property in the city of Rome, which property is described in said bill, and in a copy attached to said bill, as an exhibit, and to restrain said defendants from "the appropriation of one-third of the rents of said property to their own use." "That the said James M. Spullock has sold two-fifths of said property to Jones & Scott for one thousand dollars, and on the 12th January, 1859, executed a deed of conveyance therefor, and that he, deponent, is informed and believes that the said Johnson has sold one-fifth of said property for five hundred dollars, and that the said Yarborough and Hills have respectively rented the other two-fifths of said property, or the lower room, for $70.00, for each one-fifth part thereof per annum, and that defendants have by said sales and rentings placed it out of deponent's power to get his third part of the rents of said property, to which he is entitled; placing the property out of the reach of deponent, so as to prevent him from enforcing his vendor's lien, " &c.
Spullock answered that he had no notice on any injunction, prior to its service, as stated in the rule nisi, nor for some time thereafter, as the same, he thought, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garland v. State
...its decision ought to be final, except, perhaps, in the case in which the decision shows an enormous abuse of the discretion.' Cabot v. Yarborough, 27 Ga. 476. The discretion of the judge finding a party in contempt or in refusing to find a party in contempt has been compared to the discret......
-
Crudup v. State
...Salem v. State of Ga., 101 Ga.App. 905(1), 115 S.E.2d 447; Garland v. State of Ga., 101 Ga.App. 395, 401, 114 S.E.2d 176; Cabot v. Yarborough, 27 Ga. 476; Remley v. DeWall, 41 Ga. 466; Hayden v. Phinizy, 67 Ga. 758; Warner v. Martin, 124 Ga. 387, 52 S.E. 446, 4 Ann.Cas. 180; Mays v. Willing......
-
Garland v. State
...action in such cases should be final, unless there is something in the decision to show a most flagrant abuse of the discretion. Cabot v. Yarborough, 27 Ga. 476.' Howard v. Durand, 36 Ga. 346. See also Mays v. Willingham, 37 Ga.App. 478, 140 S.E. 789. This court, which has itself issued a c......
-
White v. State
...its decision ought to be final, except, perhaps in the case in which the decision shows an enormous abuse of the discretion.' Cabot v. Yarborough, 27 Ga. 476. This is as it should and must be. Courts must have authority to maintain order and decorum and to command the respect and dignity re......