Holcomb v. Bivens, 38486
| Decision Date | 11 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 38486,No. 2,38486,2 |
| Citation | 103 Ga.App. 86,118 S.E.2d 840 |
| Parties | F. D. HOLCOMB et al. v. W. H. BIVENS et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Milton Grubbs, Jr., Holcomb & McDuff, Robert E. McDuff, Marietta, for plaintiffs in error.
Allen, Duncan & Ford, Vernon W. Duncan, Marietta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
This was a suit by two named attorneys for a declaratory judgment as to the priority of the plaintiffs' attorney's lien over the defendant Bivens' security deed to certain described real property and for a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from exercising the power of sale contained in their security deed, the same being in default. The trial court sustained the defendant's oral motion to dismiss the petition, and dismissed the same. The exception is to that judgment, it being recited in the bill of exceptions that 'the injunctive relief sought has now become moot, and the sole question now left is the determination by the court of the priority of the plaintiffs in error attorney's lien.' Held:
While under Ga.L.1959, p. 236, amending the Declaratory Judgment Act (Ga.L.1945, p. 137, Code, Ann., § 110-1101 et seq.), by adding thereto Section 1(c), one is not precluded from obtaining relief by declaratory judgment merely because the complaining party has other adequate legal or equitable remedy or remedies, yet, where, as in the instant case, the petition shows that the rights of the parties have already accrued and no facts or circumstances are alleged which show the necessity for a determination of any dispute to guide and protect the petitioners from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the propriety of some future act or conduct which is properly incident to their alleged right, which future action without direction would jeopardize their interests, the petition fails to state a cause of action for a declaratory judgment. Pinkard v. Mendel, 216 Ga. 487, 117 S.E.2d 336; State Highway Department of Georgia v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co., 216 Ga. 547, 117 S.E.2d 897; Sumner v. Davis, 211 Ga. 702, 88 S.E.2d 392; State of Georgia v. Hospital Authority of Gilmer County, 213 Ga. 894, 898, 102 S.E.2d 543; McCallum v. Quarles, 214 Ga. 192, 104 S.E.2d 105. Accordingly, the petition failing to state a cause of action for a declaratory judgment and the plaintiffs not being entitled under the pleadings to any other relief, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaSalle Nat. Ins. Co. v. Popham
...a future course of action, i.e., whether it must afford a defense. In the same category of the wills cases is Holcomb v. Bivens, 103 Ga.App. 86, 118 S.E.2d 840, where two attorneys sought a determination as to the priority of liens-which is controlled by statute. Nor do we find Gant v. Stat......
-
Southern Trust Ins. Co. v. Clark, s. 56816
...and there is no necessity of protecting the petitioner from uncertainty with respect to the propriety of its conduct. Holcomb v. Bivens, 103 Ga.App. 86, 118 S.E.2d 840. In this case, Commercial Union was presented with a claim by Sutton against So. Trust. It could have pursued one of severa......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hillhouse
...and guide petitioner 'from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the propriety of some future act or conduct.' Holcomb v. Bivens, 103 Ga.App. 86, 118 S.E.2d 840, and citations.' In interpreting this ruling and applying it to the facts of that case it was said: 'If (the insurer) has fai......
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Moody
...Southern & Fla. Ry. Co., 216 Ga. 547(2), 117 S.E.2d 897; Dunn v. Campbell, 219 Ga. 412, 414-415, 134 S.E.2d 20. Accord: Holcomb v. Bivens, 103 Ga.App. 86, 118 S.E.2d 840; Gant v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 109 Ga.App. 41, 134 S.E.2d 886; Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hood, 110 Ga.App. 8......