Court Opinion

ID: 9566690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:42:01.353163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:59.481195
License: Public Domain

Duckworth, Chief Justice,
dissenting. Hoping to clarify the confusing and contradictory opinions of this court as to when courts of equity would exercise concurrent jurisdiction with courts of ordinary, I did exhaustive research in Hamrick v. Hamrick, 206 Ga. 564 (58 SE2d 145), in the hope that confusion would thereafter cease. But here we have a decision by four Justices in a case actually identical in principle with the Hamrick case which is contrary to that decision and revives the previously existing uncertainty.
It ought not to be too difficult to understand that equity will grant relief only where the operation of the general rules of law would be deficient. Code § 37-102. And that where law and equity have concurrent jurisdiction, whichever first takes jurisdiction shall retain it unless good reason shall be given for the interference of equity. Code § 37-122. And where there is a complete remedy at law for a plain legal right, equity will not grant relief. Code § 37-120. In the instant case the administration of an estate under a duly probated will is in the court of ordinary where it belongs. Grievances of co-executors against a co-executor who is not shown to be insolvent constitute this case. The Hamrick case alleged waste, mismanagement, loss, commingling of funds and failure to account for various funds, and the instant case alleges no more. By application to the ordinary an adequate remedy for every alleged grievance can *159be obtained, and the estate will be handled by one court rather than two as the petitioners seek. The law should not again be tossed back into confusion from which we sought to free it by the decision in the Hamrick ease.