Printup v. The Cherokee R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 45 Ga. 365 |
| Parties | DANIEL S. PRINTUP, agent, plaintiff in error. v. THE CHEROKEE RAILROAD COMPANY, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Injunction. Receiver. Practice Supreme Court. Before Judge Parrott. Bartow county. Chambers. January, 1872.
Early in December, 1871, said railroad company filed a bill, averring that Henry Clews & Company claimed to be its creditor for a large amount, because they held bonds purporting to be issued by it and indorsed by the State of Georgia; that, for reasons given, said bonds were void, as to said company and said State; that various other named parties were its creditors, and some of them had judgments against it and would sell its property. To avoid a multiplicity of *suits, for the reasons set out in said bill, it prayed marshalling of its assets, and that, ad interim, a Receiver take possession of the road, etc., and that all the creditors be enjoined from proceeding, except as defendants to this bill. The Chancellor ordered the defendant to shew cause, on the 30th of December, 1871, why said prayer should not be granted.
On that day, Printup appeared and stated that he was agent of the State, and asked for a postponement of the hearing to another day. The State was not a party to the bill, but, by consent, the hearing was postponed till the first Monday in January, 1872. On that day, Printup was not present. Then and there complainant amended their bill by averments to the following effect:
Henry Clews & Company, said holders of the pretended bonds of the company, indorsed by the State, (which bonds are void, for the reasons aforesaid,) falsely represented to Conley, then Governor of Georgia, that said State was bound on said bonds, and that the interest due on them was unpaid, and prayed that he, as Governor, would seize and hold said road and its property as indemnity for the liability of said State, according to the provisions of the Act under which said indorsement was made. Thereupon, on the 28th of December, 1871, Conley, as Governor, did issue his proclamation, ordering the seizure thereof by Daniel Printup, as agent of the State, and under said order, Printup was about to take possession of the same. In fact, Printup is not the agent of the State, but is the attorney of Henry Clews & Company, and this proclamation, etc., is but a trick to enable Henry Clews & Company to force the payment of said void bonds. And they prayed injunction against Printup. No service...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lathrop v. Deal
...("The State cannot, against the will of the Legislature, be compelled to submit its liabilities to its own Courts."); Printup v. Cherokee R. Co. , 45 Ga. 365, 367 (1872) ("[T]he State cannot be made a party to this suit against or without her consent...."). Most commonly, the doctrine was e......
-
Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Atlanta Gas Light Co
...35 S.Ct. 214, 59 L.Ed. 405, affirming 137 Ga. 497, 73 S.E. 741, supra. Counsel for the defendants contend that the cases of Printup v. Cherokee R. Co., 45 Ga. 365; Ramsey v. Hamilton, 181 Ga. 365, 182 S.E. 392, and Musgrove v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 204 Ga. 139, 49 S.E.2d 26, 36, r......
-
City of Coll. Park v. Clayton Cnty.
...("The State cannot, against the will of the Legislature, be compelled to submit its liabilities to its own Courts."); Printup v. Cherokee R. Co. , 45 Ga. 365, 367 (1872) ("[T]he State cannot be made a party to this suit against or without her consent. ..."). Most commonly, the doctrine was ......
-
Bd. of Commissioners of Lowndes Cnty. v. Mayor & Council of Valdosta
...Ga. 746, 747-748, 75 S.E.2d 814 (1953) ; Musgrove v. Ga. R. & Banking Co. , 204 Ga. 139, 157, 49 S.E.2d 26 (1948) ; Printup v. Cherokee R. Co. , 45 Ga. 365, 367 (1872) ). "The doctrine of sovereign immunity at common law generally was inapplicable, however, in cases in which state officers ......