Hermann v. Mobley

• Decision Date: 25 February 1931
• Docket Number: No. 7889.,7889.
• Citation: 172 Ga. 380,158 S.E. 38
• Parties: HERMANN et al. v. MOBLEY, Superintendent of Banks.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

172 Ga. 380

158 S.E. 38

HERMANN et al.

v.MOBLEY, Superintendent of Banks.

No. 7889.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 25, 1931.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Telfair County; R. Earl Camp, Judge.

Equitable petition by A. B. Mobley, Superintendent, etc., against E. II. Hermann and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

Thos. W. Hardwick, of Albany, and W. S. Mann, of McRae, for plaintiffs in error.

S. P. New, of Dublin, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

HILL, J.

1. Creditors without lien cannot, as a general rule, enjoin their debtors from disposing of property, nor obtain injunction or other extraordinary relief in equity. Civil Code 1910, § 5495. An exception to the general rule is where an insolvent debtor is fraudulently transferring his property to one in complicity with him, who is disposing of the property, or where property is obtained by fraudulent representations. Albany & R. Iron & Steel Co. v. Agricultural Works, 76 Ga. 135, 169(3), 2 Am. St Rep. 26; Cohen v. Morris, 70 Ga. 313.

2. Where there is one common right to be established by or against several, and one is asserting the right against many, or many against one, equity will determine the whole matter in one action. Civil Code 1910, § 5419; Knox v. Reese, 149 Ga. 379, 381, 109 S. E. 371.

3. There is no misjoinder of parties or of causes of action, even if the petition concerns things of a different nature against several defendants whose rights are distinct, if it. sets forth one connected interest among them all, centering in the point in issue in the case. Conley v. Buck, 100 Ga. 187, 28 S. E. 97; Greer v. Andrew, 133 Ga. 193, 195, 65 S. E. 416; Blaisdell v. Bohr, 68 Ga. 56; Crandall v. Shepard, 166 Ga. 396, 143 S. E. 587.

4. In injunction cases, all parties interested in sustaining the judgment, and whose rights and interests are sought to be affected, are necessary parties defendant. Wells v. J. E. Rountree & Co., 117 Ga. 839, 45 S. E. 215.

5. "A bill is not multifarious because all of the defendants are not interested in all of the matters contained in the suit. It is sufficient if each party has an interest in some matter in the suit which is common to all, and that they are connected with the others. All persons who are directly or consequentially interested in the event of the suit are properly made parties to a bill in equity, so as to prevent a multiplicity of suits by or against parties at once or successively affected by the original case." Blaisdell v. Bohr, 68 Ga. 56.

6. Where an equitable petition is brought to set aside a conveyance on the ground of fraud, or for other reason, the grantee in the conveyance is a necessary party. Taylor v. Colley, 138 Ga. 41, 74 S. E. 694; Hines v. Wilson, 164 Ga. S8S(3, 4), 139 S. E. 802; Fordham v. Duggan, 147 Ga. 610 (2), 95 S. E. 3; Zeigler v. Arnett, 142 Ga. 487, S3 S. E. 112.

7. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of this case, the court below did not err in overruling the demurrer on the grounds that the plaintiff had no lien,...