Simpson v. Robert
| Decision Date | 31 December 1866 |
| Parties | OLIVE SIMPSON, plaintiff in error. v. Wm. H. ROBERT and wife, defendants in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Injunction and Receiver. Decision at Chambers, by Judge Clark. September 1866.
The defendants in error filed their cross bill of injunction, praying for a Receiver, against the plaintiff in error, alleging that they purchased, at the price of one hundred and fifty dollars, from one Jordan Williford, the growing crop of one Tillman J. Simpson, on 30 acres of land, more or less, consisting of corn, peas and potatoes. The crop was growing *on land rented by Simpson from Irwin. Williford took a written transfer of the crop from Simpson. The con-sideration was that Williford stood security on the bond of Simpson to appear at Court in July, 1866, in Lee county, to answer the charge of simple larceny. The transfer to be void if Simpson kept the condition of this bond. Simpson did not appear. On the contrary, very soon after the date of the bond he ran away. Defendants in error paid the purchase money by a draft drawn on Hardeman & Sparks, of Macon, in favor of Newson, who is Judge of the County Court of Lee, to be by him paid over to Williford. The draft was promptly accepted and is still in the possession of Newson. Williford, being satisfied, put defendants in error in possession of the premises, to enable them to control the growing crop. The plaintiff in error (wife of Simpson) was apprised of the nature and object of the whole transaction, assented thereto, and only requested to be allowed to continue to occupy the house.
Defendants in error remained in peaceable possession, working and taking care of the crop until about the 25th of August, 1866, when they were served with an injunction granted by the Judge of the Pataula Circuit, without requiring a bond, and without notice, at the instance of the plaintiff in error, enjoining them against taking possession or in anywise interfering with the crop. Plaintiff in error charged in her bill that the appearance bond of Simpson was void; that she was very poor, and if the crop is taken from her she and her six children will be left destitute.
Defendants in error further charge, that plaintiff in error is wasting the crop, and that she is totally insolvent.
The injunction was granted and a receiver appointed, and this is the error alleged.
Fred. H. West, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. Kimbrough, for defendant in error.
*LUMPKIN, C. J.
This case originated in this wise: Tillman J. Simpson was arrested for simple larceny, in Lee county, and committed to Dougherty county jail, on account of the insufficiency of Lee county jail. Jordan Williford became his bail, and for this purpose entered into a recognizance to the Sheriff of the county that he would appear at the semi-annual session of the County Court, to be held on the 4th Monday in July, 1866, and from Term to Term to abide by whatever was adjudged against him, until discharged by the Court.
To induce Williford to become his bail, he executed a mortgage to Williford on his growing crop. This instrument was transferred to Roberts and wife. Mrs. Simpson filed a bill of injunction to stop the parties from any interference with her property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maris v. Lindsey
...1902, par. 1; Alabama, Civil Code 1896, par. 5; Michigan, Complied Laws 1897, par. 50, subsec. 13; New York, Laws 1892, ch. 677, par. 10. In Simpson v. Roberts, 35 180, it is held that: "Although the word preceding, means generally next before, yet a different significance will be given to ......
-
Maris v. Lindsey
... ... said things ... The ... answer further alleges that on June 9, 1913, Jake Jones, ... William Dinkins, Robert Jones, Maggie Jones, and Sarah Jones ... Lindsey owed John Wohner the sum of five thousand eight ... hundred sixty-five dollars, bearing interest ... par. 5; Michigan, Complied Laws 1897, par. 50, subsec. 13; ... New York, Laws 1892, ch. 677, par. 10 ... In ... Simpson v. Roberts, 35 Georgia, 180, it is held that: ... "Although the word preceding, means generally next ... before, yet a different significance will ... ...
-
Montgomery Light & Traction Co. v. Avant
...requires it to represent several or one more remote. Fisher v. Connard, 100 Pa. 63, 69; State v. Jernigan, 3 Murph. [5 N.C.] 18; Simpson v. Robert, 35 Ga. 180. grammatical rule, which is also the legal rule, in construing statutes, was held to be that, where general words occur at the end o......
-
Banks v. Brodofsky
...consideration. 3 R. C. L., Bail and Recognizance 60; 31 C. J. Indemnity, 425; Leary v. United States, 224 U.S. 567, 56 L.E. 889; Simpson v. Robert, 35 Ga. 180; Maloney Nelson, 144 N.Y. 182, 39 N.E. 82; Western Surety Co. v. Kelly, 27 S.D. 465, 131 N.W. 808; Essig v. Turner, 60 Wash. 175, 11......