Pope v. Solomons

• Decision Date: 31 December 1867
• Citation: 36 Ga. 541
• Parties: JOHN D. POPE, plaintiff in error. v. WILLIAM SOLOMONS, E. H. WILLIAMS & CO., and WILLIAM E. WATKINS, defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

36 Ga. 541

JOHN D. POPE, plaintiff in error. v. WILLIAM SOLOMONS, E. H. WILLIAMS & CO., and WILLIAM E. WATKINS, defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Milledgeville, Dec. Term, 1867.)

Motion to dissolve Injunction. Decided by Judge Collier. Chambers. Fulton County. September, 1867.

The allegations in Pope's bill were, that E. H. Williams & Co., (composed of Williams and Thomas H. Bomar,) rented from him a store-room at $175 per month, and were in arrears with him $500 with interest, for rent of September, October, November and December, 1866; that on 1st January, 1866, E. H. Williams borrowed of William Solomon $500, agreeing to pay him five or ten per cent, a month as interest, payable monthly, that this interest was paid until a large amount had been received by Solomon, which ought to have been credited on the principal and lawful interest, which would have reduced the debt to the sum of $262, but had been applied to discharge such usury; that in March, 1867, E. H. Williams had an interest in a stock of goods worth $1,500 or $2,000, that he then sold his interest therein to William E. Watkins, Watkins agreeing in writing to pay *Solomon the entire amount for all the money borrowed from Solomon, with all the usury on the* same, and charge the same as paid to Williams on account of said stock; Williams absconds, leaving no property in the State, and Bomar is insolvent. Discovery is sought from Bomar as to said indebtedness and his insolvency, from Watkins as to his purchase and how he was to pay for it, and from Solomon as to the amount loaned, at what rate, how much has been paid, &c.

The prayer is that Watkins be enjoined from paying Solomon till further order, and that any balance due from Watkins to Williams, after paying Solomon what is due him, (allowing him lawful interest only, and charging him with the usury received,) may be paid by Watkins to Pope.

The bill was sanctioned by Judge Warner, (then Judge of the Coweta circuit). Injunction was issued, and the bill was served on Solomon and Watkins.

Solomon answered that, according to his information, in February, 1866, said E. H. Williams & Co. went into said store as tenants of one Queen, and afterwards, and before 1st September, 1866, became by some arrangement Pope's tenants, and paid him all rent due to that date, and on that day, with notice to Pope, Bomar withdrew from the firm, (he says thisdischarged the firm,); that E. H. Williams did not owe Pope $500 or any sum for rent from 1st September to 1st December, 1866; he loaned Williams $500 on 24th May, 1866, at six per cent, per month, for thirty days, and took from Williams therefor his five promissory notes for $100 each, with William Watkins as security; Williams did not pay the notes when due, but continued to use the money, and paid Solomon thirty dollars on the first of each month for five months; that they then changed the rate to five per cent, a month, and accordingly Williams paid Solomon twenty-five dollars a month for five months more, ending 24th February, 1867, which paid up to 24th March, 1867, and he never paid anything since.

Solomon and Watkins both answered that Williams owned an interest in the stock of goods and store-house on the corner of Whitehall and Peachtree streets, together esti-mated at *$2,000, and on the 23d March, 1867, in writing, sold to Watkins all his said interest in consideration that he (Watkins) would pay off and discharge all the debts of said concern due for the stock, amounting to $1,500, and "also for and in consideration of the sum of five hundred dollars which I (Williams) owe to William Solomon for borrowed money, and for which he, the said Watkins, is security, " that Watkins was no party to the contract for usury, but was bound as security on said notes and was to pay them to Solomon without usury; they admit Bomar's insolvency, and that Williams absconds, and so far as they know, left no property in this State.

In September, 1866, a motion was made to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the bill for...