Parker v. Cochran

• Decision Date: 05 August 1895
• Citation: 97 Ga. 249,22 S.E. 961
• Parties: PARKER. v. COCHRAN et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

22 S.E. 961

97 Ga. 249

PARKER.

v.COCHRAN et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 5, 1895.

Plea as to Parties—Misjoinder—Injunction— Sufficiency of Petition.

1. A demurrer to an equitable petition on the ground that it "has not all the proper parties to it" is defective, in that the demurrer fails to state the name of any person who should be made a party.

2. Upon the facts alleged there was no misjoinder of parties, and the plaintiff's petition was not multifarious. There was equity in the petition, and it was error to dismiss it as to some of the defendants, and as to another defendant to dissolve the restraining order previously granted, and, without hearing evidence, to refuse the injunction prayed for, on the ground that the petition was without equity.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Paulding county; C. G. Janes, Judge.

Action by Etta Parker against W. C. Cochran and others for an injunction. The petition was denied, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

The following is the official report:

Mrs. Parker brought her petition in the nature of a bill in equity against W. C. Cochran and M. M. & C. C. Phillips & Co., to which Franklin Parker, husband of plaintiff, was afterwards made party defendant A demurrer was interposed, and the demurrer was sustained, and the petition dismissed as to M. M. & C. C. Phillips & Co., and a restraining order previously granted as against Cochran was dissolved, and the distress warrant for rent, in question, ordered to proceed.

The petition alleged: Mrs. Parker owns and is possessed of lots 401 and 402 in the Third district and Third section of Paulding county, in her own right, as appears from a deed from her husband to her, attached, dated March 8, 1886. On September 19, 1892, her husband was in possession, under a contract of purchase from M. M. & C. C. Phillips, of lots Nos. 403 and 462 in the same district and section, and held their bond for title thereto. On her land there was then about 50 acres well suited for cultivation. A short time before September 19, 1S92, she authorized her husband to rent her land for 1893 for standing rent, and he did rent her land, together with his own, above mentioned, to Echols & Johnson, for $150, valuing the rental of her land at $100 and of his at $50, and taking the notes of Echols & Johnson, payable to him or bearer, for $75 each, due December 1, 1893. On January 3, 1893, Cochran fraudulently persuaded and coerced her and her husband to make and deliver a note payable to Cochran for $65, due November 15, 1893, ostensibly in settlement of a suit then pending in Paulding superior court of Cochran against her husband for alleged damages in hiring employes of Cochran, when in fact the note was also to be in settlement of two indictments pending in the same court, wherein Cochran was prosecuting her husband for enticing away employes of Cochran, and for using opprobrious words etc. Her husband was fraudulently induced and coerced to give Cochran said note by the promises and threats of Cochran that, if she and her husband would give the note, Cochran would settle the civil suit, and would also stop the criminal cases, and would throw the latter out of court at the costs of the state; and that, if they did not give the note, he would not only prosecute the criminal case, but would prosecute them for perjury in a case which had been tried against Cochran in the same court for carrying concealed weapons; and that he, Cochran, could make Eliza Martin swear to anything he wanted her to. Petitioner was fraudulently induced to sign said $65 note by a verbal message sent her by Cochran, by her husband, that if she...