Powell v. Chamberlain, Miller & Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
In Equity, from Murray Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, at chambers, March 1857. This was a bill for discovery and injunction, filed by Jacob S. P. Powell, John B. Powell and James Edmunson agains Charles V. Chamberlain, David Miller and Alexander Isaacs, partners, under the firm of Chamberlain, Miller fy Co. The bill alleges that on the 11th day of February, 1853, said S. P. Powell, made his promissory note payable to the Bank of Charleston, South Carolina, for…
Read the full summary
In Equity, from Murray Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, at chambers, March 1857. This was a bill for discovery and injunction, filed by Jacob S. P. Powell, John B. Powell and James Edmunson agains Charles V. Chamberlain, David Miller and Alexander Isaacs, partners, under the firm of Chamberlain, Miller fy Co. The bill alleges that on the 11th day of February, 1853, said S. P. Powell, made his promissory note payable to the Bank of Charleston, South Carolina, for $1,225 63, ninety days after date, and that John B. PoWell endorsed said note to Edmunson, and Edmunson endorsed the same…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Benning J.
delivering the opinion.
Was the Court right in refusing to order the injunction ?
We think so, and for two reasons.
1st. The price of the corn if allowed as a credit on the note, would not pay off the note. And there is not m the bill any tender of the balance. And there is and can be no pretense of aright to an injunction to prevent the holders of the note from collecting this balance.
2d. The allegations of the bill, in respect to discovery, are so uncertain that it is impossible to tell from them, whether the complainants really need any relief or discovery — to tell…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Turk v. RossSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877