Pate v. The Oglethorpe Fertilizing Co.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1875 |
| Citation | 54 Ga. 515 |
| Parties | John N. Pate, plaintiff in error. v. The Oglethorpe Fertilizing Company et al., defendants in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Homestead. Injunction. Levy and sale. Before Judge Hopkins. DeKalb county. At Chambers. February 12th, 1875. Reported in the opinion.
E. N. Broyles; H. C. Jones, for plaintiffs in error.
L. J. Winn, for defendants.
Pate, it seems, secured a homestead, and then went to trading upon it according to his. own fancy. He invested its proceeds in some other land, and his creditor came down upon it. Underthe pressure of a levy, Pate applied to the chancellor for an injunction to restrain the creditor from selling out his new purchase. The chancellor granted a temporary restraining order, but afterwards, upon demurrer, dismissed the bill.
1.At the time of applying for the injunction Pate had a proceeding pending on appeal from the ordinary which proceeding was commenced for the purpose of having this land assigned as a homestead, in addition to that which had been previously assigned, the latter being of small value, and both together not amounting to near as much as the law allows. *It would seem that there might be some reason for permitting successive assignments of homesteads until the maximum value allowed by the constitution is reached, but we are unable to find that the legislature has, up to this time, provided for any second proceeding. Until further legislation, we hold that there is no law for it.
2. Nor can we recognize Pate's right to call for the protection of a court of equity on the ground that the proceeds of the former homestead are invested in this land. There has been no legal sale of the homestead property—certainly none of the personalty, for in the sale of that the wife did not join and the ordinary did not consent. Besides, a court of equity is under no obligation to respond to the call of a party to protect him against the consequences of his own breach of law. He had no right to enter upon the course of dealing which has involved him in trouble. According to his own showing, he has himself failed to respect the homestead right, but has invaded it. A court of equity ought to do nothing upon his application, whatever relief it might afford to his wife and children.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele v. Leonori
... ... than the maximum allowed by law. Pate v. Fertilizing ... Co., 54 Ga. 515; Thompson on Homesteads and Exemptions, ... secs. 669 to 678, ... ...
-
Reed v. Holbrook
...he should do so in the way the law prescribes, and when he disregards the formal requisites of the law he does so at his peril. Pate v. Oglethorpe Co., 54 Ga. 515. In our opinion, the plaintiff in the case now under consideration was not, under the evidence submitted, chargeable with notice......
- Stephens v. Hudson
-
Mitchell v. Wolfe
...to supplement and increase this exemption as against the claim of the objector? We entertain no doubt that it was. In Pate vs. The Oglethorpe, etc., Co., 54 Ga. 515, this court held, in the year 1875, that there was then no provision of law for taking a second or supplemental homestead, alt......