Wellborn v. Bonner
| Decision Date | 31 August 1850 |
| Docket Number | No. 19.,19. |
| Citation | 9 Ga. 82 |
| Parties | Alfred Wellborn, plaintiff in error. vs. Robert Bonner, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Application for an injunction to Judge Hill. Refused at Chambers, June 29th, 1850.
The bill alleged that Robert Bonner, the defendant, at the February Term, 1850, of Meriwether Superior Court, recovered a judgment against the complainant, for the sum of twelve hundred dollars damages, whereon an execution had been issued, which was then in the hands of the Sheriff, to be enforced by levy and sale.
The bill further alleged, that on 20th day of March, 1850, the complainant, in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, purchased from the surviving partners, in the firm of Millers, Ripley & Co., two executions against the defendant and one Seymour R. Bonner, amounting in the aggregate, at the date of the judgments, to the sum of thirteen hundred and eighty-four dollars, and which were transferred to the complainant by written assignments. Upon each of these executions, there were returns of "no property, " by the proper officer; that Seymour R. Bonner, one of the defendants, is beyond the jurisdiction of the State, and insolvent.
The bill further alleged, that complainant, by his counsel, had proposed to the defendant to set off the executions which he held against defendant and Seymour R. Bonner, against the execution in favor of the defendant against complainant, then in thehands of the Sheriff; that this proposition was rejected, and as a pretence, the bill alleges, that the defendant stated that his counsel had a claim upon the amount of bis recovery against the complainant for their professional charges, in prosecuting the suit upon which said judgment was founded.
The bill further alleges, that complainant purchased the execution from Millers, Ripley & Co., without any notice of any such claim on the part of Bonner's counsel.
The bill prays that the executions may be set off against each other, and that defendant may be restrained from assigning or further prosecuting his execution against the complainant.
Judge Hill refused his sanction to the injunction, and counsel for complainant excepted.
Slaughter and Russell, for plaintiff in error.
W. Dougherty, for defendant in error.
By the Court.—Warner, J., delivering the opinion.
The assignee of the judgments occupies precisely the same position, as to all his legal rights, as did the original plaintiffs against the property of the defendant, and has the same right to collect the same for his own use and benefit, in as full and ample a manner as the original plaintiffs could have done, if no such transfer or assignment had been made. Prince, 465. That judgments may be set off, both at Law and in Equity, is admitted; but the latter Court has no jurisdiction, when, from the facts of the case, the complainant has an ample and adequate remedy in the Common Law Courts.
In this case, it appears from the record, that complainant was not the owner of the judgments against Bonner, until after the rendition of the judgment in favor of Bonner against him. The judgment in favor of Bonner against Wellborn, the complainant, was rendered in February, 1850. In the month of March thereafter, the complainant purchased and obtained an assignment of the judgments against Bonner. At law, both parties were enti-tled to the process of execution, to enforce the payment of their respective judgments. The complainant, who is the assignee of the judgments against Bonner, asks the interference of a Court of Equity to restrain the collection of Bonner\'s judgment against him, and that the judgments which he holds against Bonner may be set off, and operate as a satisfaction of the judgment obtained by Bonner against him. Each party holds a judgment against the other at this time, but there was no ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v. Peyton
...Philbrook v. Delano, 29 Me. 410; Ahrend v. Odiorne, 118 Mass. 261; Simpson v. Mundee, 3 Kan. 172; Baum v. Grigsby, 21 Cal. 172; Wellborn v. Bonner, 9 Ga. 82; Briggs v. Hill, 6 How. (Miss.) 362; Jones, Mortg. § 212. In this conflict of authority as to the assignability of grantors' liens, we......
-
Tri-State Nat. Bank v. Saffren
...Philbrook v. Delano, 29 Me. 410; Ahrend v. Odiorne, 118 Mass. 261; Simpson v. Mundee, 3 Kan. 172; Baum v. Grigsby, 21 Cal. 173; Wellborn v. Bonner, 9 Ga. 82; Briggs v. Hill, 6 How. (Miss.) 362; 1 Jones, Mortg. § 212." (Italics in original.) 27 N.W. at We find these words most persuasive and......
-
Hammond v. Peyton
...Delano, 29 Me. 410, Shepley, C. J.; Ahrend v. Odiorne, 118 Mass. 261, Gray, C. J.; Kauffelt v. Bower, 7 Serg. & R. 64, Gibson, J.; Wellborn v. Bonner, 9 Ga. 82. Perhaps one of the strongest indorsements of the doctrine is found in Manly v. Slason, 21 Vt. 271, by Redfield, J., in 1849; but i......
-
Alsabrook v. Prudential Ins. Co.
...created by law thereon, for the reason that the money is not subject to levy and sale in satisfaction thereof." And, further: "In Wellborn v. Bonner, 9 Ga. 82, this court held in such cases a court of equity did not have jurisdiction on a bill filed, because the complainant had an ample and......