Hobbs v. Peavy
| Decision Date | 11 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18545,18545 |
| Citation | 82 S.E.2d 224,210 Ga. 671 |
| Parties | HOBBS et al. v. PEAVY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Fort & Fort, Americus, R. S. Wimberly, Lumpkin, for plaintiffs in error.
Pace & Pace, Americus, Nelson & Nelson, Dublin, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
At the January term, 1954, of Stewart County Superior Court, a grand jury elected E. H. Peavy, Jr., and W. G. Thrower as members of the county's board of education. Peavy was elected to succeed F. Royce Hobbs, and Thrower was elected to succeed Halliday Pearce. On January 13, 1954, F. Royce Hobbs and C. H. Canington, alleging themselves to be duly appointed, commissioned, qualified, and acting members of the county's board of education, instituted an action for injunctive relief in Stewart County against Peavy, Thrower, and J. T. Humber. W. P. Carter, alleging himself to be a citizen and taxpayer of Stewart County, joined Hobbs and Canington in their suit. So far as need be stated, their petition, after being amended, alleged: It was necessary for the grand jury which convened in Stewart County during January, 1954, to elect a successor to Hobbs, whose term as a member of the county board of education was expiring; and also a successor to Pearce, who had moved out of the county, and was for that reason no longer eligible to serve as a member of the county's board of education. The election of Peavy and Thrower was illegal, and therefore void, because nine of the grand jurors who served and participated in their election were disqualified to act in the matter, they being either parties or related within the prohibited degree to parties in certain litigation which was then pending in Stewart County and which attacked the legality of its management of the county's school affairs, particularly as to its building program and reorganization of schools. A copy of the petition in the referred to pending suit against the county board of education was attached to and by reference made a part of the instant petition. It is also alleged in the original petition that the defendants Peavy and Thrower, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, will shortly present themselves as members of the board; that they will interfere with the orderly conduct and operation of the board; that they will endeavor illegally to participate in any action to be taken by the board; that they will undertake to handle, manage, and control the board's funds; and that they will pay to themselves from the county's school funds that compensation fixed for board members. By an amendment to the petition it is alleged that Peavy and Thrower, together with others, conferred and conspired with some of those who had been drawn for grand jury service 'with the object in view of securing an election or appointment by the grand jury of two members of the county board of education'; and also, that Peavy and Thrower were elected as board members by a disqualified grand jury on their promise to help halt and destroy the board's present school-building program. In addition to one for process and service, the prayers are that the defendant Humber, as Clerk of the Superior Court of Stewart County, be restrained and enjoined from certifying the names of Peavy and Thrower to the State Superintendent of Schools for commissions until the issues made by the petition as amended can be heard and determined; that the defendants Peavy and Thrower be restrained and enjoined from interfering with any member of the county's board of education in the performance of his official duties; that they be restrained and enjoined from attempting to participate in any action to be taken by the board; and that they be granted general relief. The exception is to a judgment dismissing the petition as amended on general demurrer. Held:
1. The power which a chancellor has to grant injunctions should be prudently and cautiously exercised, and, except in clear and urgent cases, should not be resorted to. Code, § 55-108; Tumlin v. Vanhorn, 77 Ga. 315, 320, 3 S.E. 264; Reeve v. Reeve, 163 Ga. 95, 135 S.E. 434...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Medical Sec., Inc. v. Parker
...danger of suffering an impending injury for which he does not have an adequate and complete remedy at law. See Hobbs v. Peavy, 210 Ga. 671, 673(4), 82 S.E.2d 224 (1954). So long as appellees remained parties to the Alabama action, they lacked standing to seek equitable relief in Georgia, be......
-
American Mgmt. Serv. East, LLC v. Fort Benning Family Communities, LLC
...great danger of suffering an imminent injury for which he does not have an adequate and complete remedy at law. See Hobbs v. Peavy, 210 Ga. 671, 673(4), 82 S.E.2d 224 (1954). The appellants argue that because FBFC and BRC are not parties to the Virginia action, they have no vested interest ......
-
American Mgmt. Servs. East, LLC v. Fort Benning Family Comm. LLC
...great danger of suffering an imminent injury for which he does not have an adequate and complete remedy at law. See Hobbs v. Peavy, 210 Ga. 671, 673 (4) (82 SE2d 224) (1954). The appellants argue that because FBFC and BRC are not parties to the Virginia action, they have no vested interest ......
-
R.D. Brown Contractors v. Board of Educ.
...7. Brown also argues that the court ignored any consideration of whether it had an adequate remedy at law. See Hobbs v. Peavy, 210 Ga. 671, 673(4), 82 S.E.2d 224 (1954). However, it has such a remedy in an award of damages. See J.A. Jones Const. Co., ...