Citation Numbers: 37 Ga. 569
Judges: Walkee
Filed Date: 6/15/1868
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Where the Chancellor abuses his discretion in the granting of an injunction, or the appointment of a Eeceiver, his action will be controlled. This was not a proper case for the appointment of a Eeceiver under the facts. The Messrs. Jones purchased the property of Holliday, paid $4,000 cash, and 88 bales of cotton, and were proceeding to make another crop. Holliday held a lien upon all the property sold, and all the evidence of any waste of the property, was the sale of a sugar mill on a credit to a solvent purchaser, two piney woods colts, which were of no use to the Jones’, and the exchange of an indifferent mare for a mule of greater value; and then they had made valuable improvements on the plantation. Upon this state of facts, the Court proposed to make a contract for the parties ; that is, if the Messrs. Jones would give a lien on the crop which they were then preparing to plant, they could retain the possession of their property, otherwise not. The Eeceiver was really appointed/it would seem, not because the Messrs. Jones were wasting the mortgaged property, but because they declined to mortgage their future.crop. A.sufficient reply is, they never contracted to do so. The vendor had his remedy to compel the payment of the money due him. He had a mortgage on all he sold; substantially, the property was all within reach of the process of the Coprt; $4,000 and 88 bags of cotton had been paid, and notwithstanding all this, the Court ordered the property out of the
Judgment reversed.