Watson v. Goolsby
Decision Date | 16 March 1891 |
Parties | Watson v. Goolsby. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties—Estate—Injunction—Receiver.
1. Land was devised to a married woman for the life of her husband, with a charge thereon for the support and maintenance of her husband during his life; after his death, his minor children to take the fee. Held, that such a minor had not, during the lives of his parents, such an interest in the land as rendered him a necessary party to an action resulting in a verdict and judgment by consent that the claim be a special lien on the crops, to be enforced in three annual installments.
2. The action being against the wife, and having been commenced in a county court which has no equitable jurisdiction, and it being doubtful whether on appeal the superior court had authority to allow an amendment seeking equitable relief, and to enter up the judgment rendered, and it being further doubtful whether execution would not lie against the life-estate, an injunction and the appointment of a receiver for the enforcement of the judgment was properly denied.
Error from superior court, Jasper county: Jenkins, Judge.
The following is the official report: The judge put his refusal of injunction and receiver (which is the judgment excepted to) upon the ground that John K. Goolsby, Jr., the minor child of John K. Goolsby and Julia E. Goolsby, has such an interest in the income of the land conveyed by the deed below set forth as made him a necessary party to an action which resulted in a verdict and judgment taken by consent of the parties, in which it was ordered that the judgment be a special lien on the crops growing and to be grown on the land conveyed by the deed, and be enforced as against such crops in three yearly installments, the gravamen of the present complaint being the failure of the defendants to comply with this judgment; and that the same is void as to the minor, for the reason that the only service upon him was by acknowledgment through the attorney of his guardian ad litem. The deed is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mauldin v. Mauldin
...test is: Was the subject-matter of the amendment within the jurisdiction of the ordinary's court? See, in this connection, Watson v. Goolsby, 86 Ga. 805, 13 S. E. 106; Hufbauer v. Jackson, 91 Ga. 301, 18 S. E. 159; Stansell v. Massey, 92 Ga. 436, 17 S. E. 821; Berger v. Saul, 109 Ga. 240, 3......
-
Mauldin v. Mauldin
... ... is: Was the subject-matter of the amendment within the ... jurisdiction of the ordinary's court? See, in this ... connection, Watson v. Goolsby, 86 Ga. 805, 13 S.E ... [105 S.E. 253.] Hufbauer v. Jackson, 91 Ga. 301, 18 S.E. 159; ... Stansell v. Massey, 92 Ga. 436, 17 S.E. 821; ... ...