Harwell v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Georgia
In Equity, in Putnam Superior Court. Decision by Judge Johnson, March Term, 1852. L. P. Harwell and wife filed a bill against James W. Armstrong and Joseph Johnson, returnable to March Term, 1851, of Putnam Superior Court. At that term, the entry of “Usual Rule” was made on the docket, but no order was taken on the minutes.
Read the full summary
In Equity, in Putnam Superior Court. Decision by Judge Johnson, March Term, 1852. L. P. Harwell and wife filed a bill against James W. Armstrong and Joseph Johnson, returnable to March Term, 1851, of Putnam Superior Court. At that term, the entry of “Usual Rule” was made on the docket, but no order was taken on the minutes. At the September Term thereafter, no answer had been filed, when defendants’ solicitor being present in Court, at his request, the following order was taken: “It is ordered that the answer be filed within ninety days after the adjournment of this Court, and on failure…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Warner, J.
delivering the opinion.
In this case, the Court below allowed the defendant, Armstrong, to file his answer under the circumstances stated in the record: refusing to permit the complainants to take their bill pro conflesso; and the question is, whether this Court will control the discretion of that Court, under this statement of facts ? In Moody vs. Fleming, (4 Ga. Rep. 117,) this Court held, that it would not control the discretion of the Court, below, only in cases where there is a refusal to exercise it, or a flagrant abuse qf it.
[1.] This is a bill filed for discovery…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moody v. FlemingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- Wooster v. WoodhullNew York Court of Chancery · 1815
3Cited by3 opinions
- Savannah & Ogeechee Canal Co. v. ShumanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Van Valkenburg v. StoneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Plant v. GunnU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia · 1874