Walker v. Walker

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Citation: Walker v. Walker, 51 Ga. 22 (Ga. 1874)
• Parties: David K. Walker, plaintiff in error. v. PETER Walker et al.,defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

51 Ga. 22

David K. Walker, plaintiff in error. v. PETER Walker et al., defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1874.)

*Injunction.Trespass.Before Judge Hall.Upson County.At Chambers.January 24th, 1874.

Peter Walker and Marlin Brown filed their bill against David K. Walker, making this case: They had been tenants of defendant during the year 1873, and were due him twenty-one balesof cotton for rent.This had not been paid because it had been held up under process of garnishment, served upon the complainants at the instance of creditors of the defendant.They had rented the same farm from him, known as the Grant place, for the year 1874.Defendant had nevertheless sought to remove them as tenants holding over, but they had stopped such proceeding by making a counter-affidavit and giving bond as required by law.He had also levied a distress warrant for the aforesaid rent on twenty-five bales of cotton and four hundred bushels of corn, which they have met as prescribed by law.He now denies that he ever rented to them the aforesaid place for the year 1874, and is interfering with the rights and privileges of complainants by menaces, threats, etc.He has driven away the hands of complainants, has locked up some of their houses, and is using every endeavor to drive them off of the place.If he is permitted to proceed in his lawless course by keeping the hands of complainants from the field, he will subject them to irreparable loss and damage.He is totally insolvent.Pray the writ of injunction.

The defendant showed for cause that the complainants had a complete remedy at law; admits that they were his tenants during the year 1873, but denies any contract for the year 1874.

The bill and answer were respectively sustained by numerous and conflicting affidavits.

The chancellor ordered the injunction to issue upon complainants'...