Edwards v. Banksmith
Supreme Court of Georgia
Motion to Dissolve Injunction. Decided by Judge Irwin. At Chambers. October, 1866. This was a bill filed by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, to set aside as fraudulent, a conveyance of certain lands lying in Cobb county, made by tbe former to Banksmith, one of the latter, who purchased for and on account of Mulford, his co-defendant.
Read the full summary
Motion to Dissolve Injunction. Decided by Judge Irwin. At Chambers. October, 1866. This was a bill filed by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, to set aside as fraudulent, a conveyance of certain lands lying in Cobb county, made by tbe former to Banksmith, one of the latter, who purchased for and on account of Mulford, his co-defendant. The fraud alleged was, that the defendants knew the land contained a valuable goldmine, and the complainant had no such knowledge, and that Banksmith, on being asked by complainant, during the negotiations, what the lands were wanted for,…
1Opinion of the Court
"Walker, J.
[1.] “It is now well settled, that the continuance or dissolution of an injunction, after the coming in of the an*215swer, depends upon the sound discretion of the Court, according to the nature and circumstances of the case.” Swift vs. Swift, 13 Ga. R. 145. And unless such discretion be abused, this Court will not control the Court below in its exercise. We see no abuse of the discretion in this case. Indeed, we can see no reason for continuing this injunction. Whether there be a valuable gold mine on the lands sold or not, is unknown. If, in the progress of the cause, circumstances…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Coleman v. LawSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- Moody v. MillenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Swift v. DederickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Bell v. SappingtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Carmichael v. FosterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.