Case ID: ga_161/html/0732-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Atkinson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Haygood v. King.
    Injunctions 32 C. J. p. 151, n. 96; p. 340, n. 81 New.
    Justices of the Peace 35 C. J. p. 786, n. 70.
   Atkinson, J.

1. Ail appeal from a judgment of a justice’s court suspends but does not vacate the judgment. The judgment remains operative with all of its incidents, save in so far as it is incapable of enforcement pending the appeal. Civil Code (1910)., § 5015; Watkins v. Angier, 99 Ga. 519 (27 S. E. 718). Accordingly a creditor having a justice’s court judgment from which an appeal has been taken, and who is other - .wise entitled to injunctive relief, does not come within the provisions of the Civil Code, § 5495, which inhibits creditors without lien, as a general rule, from enjoining their debtors from disposing of property.

No. 4690.

February 11, 1926.

Injunction. Before Judge Russell. Gwinnett superior court. December 18, 1924.

A. K. King obtained certain judgments at the November term of a justice’s court, against M. C. Haygood. Appeals were duly entered in each of the cases. While the cases were pending on appeal, King instituted an equitable suit against Haygood and K. T. Terrell, seeking to enjoin the former from receiving and the latter from paying over to the former his share of certain crops on the land of Terrell. A demurrer and an answer were filed by ITaygood alone. The petition alleged that there had been no actual division of the crop, that it was in possession of Terrell, and consequently was not subject to levy and sale; that, being in the nature of wages, it was not subject to the process of garnishment; and that by reason of these facts the petitioner was without an adequate remedy at law. These allegations were admitted in the answer. The petitioner further alleged that Haygood was seeking to fraudulently dispose of all his property, and especially his interest in the crops, by seeking to have the landlord claim that his indebtedness was more than was due, and was threatening to burn up the property before it should be applied to petitioner’s debts. These allegations were denied in the answer, with an explanation that defendant had remarked that “he had rather haul his stuff out in the pasture and stick fire to it than for the plaintiff to take it away from him without any right to do so,” but that the remark was made in a moment of passion and without any intention of carrying it into effect. There was evidence tending to support all allegations of the petition. The judge granted an interlocutory injunction, and provided that the order might be dissolved by giving a bond to pay the amount of any judgment which the plaintiff might finally recover in the ease. Haygood excepted.

John I, Kelley, for plaintiff in error. W. L. Nix, contra.

2. In the light of the admissions in the answer, the defendant did not invoke application of the principle that resort to equity can not be had where there is an adequate remedy at law.

3. On the facts of the case the judge did not err in granting the temporary injunction. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices oonowr.