Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Ga. 142

Moore v. Gleaton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 15, 1857

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1857-06-15

In Equity, from Terrell county. Decision on demurrer by Judge Kiddoo, at chambers, 8th April, 1857. This bill was filed by Joseph T. S. Gleaton., against Andrew B. Moore. The bill states that in the year 1853, Mary A. Williams departed this life intestate, leaving an estate worth about eight thousand dollars and six children as her distributees and heirs at law.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1940

5 state decisions

101857186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court

Lumpkin J.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3Is there equity in this bill ?

¶4The heirs of the complainant’s father-in-law, six in number, get together and agree to distribute the estate without incurring the expense of an administration. Gleaton is entitled to one share in right of his wife, and he purchased the share of Palmer, who married another distributee. A part of these shares is paid him ; and he files this bill to receive the residue.

¶5It is objected that the rest of the heirs should be made parties. Why so ? any more than in a suit against an administrator ? It is said that Palmer’s wife being dead, her husband had no right to convey her interest. The reply to this is two-fold. He is the heir of his wife, and as such is entitled to her portion. True, at law he could only recover it through an administration. Here the parties are in equity. But in the second place, when this agreement to divide was entered into, it amounted to a reduction to possession of each one’s share. Again it is argued that Gleaton has a common *145law remedy. It will not be pretended however, that it is so complete, even if it could be made available at all.

¶6In the next place, it is insisted that the ne exeat should be dismissed, because the affidavit is insufficient. All that is necessary is, that the affidavit should be positive as to the defendant’s intention to go abroad. 3. Daniel’s Ch. Pr. 1039. And this affidavit is so. It is true, that as to his preparation and threats, the complainant swears, as to his information and belief. But as to his intention to leave, he swears positively, according to our interpretation of his oath. And that lie is in danger of losing the whole or some part of his debt, unless this writ is granted. And after all, why should an affidavit to obtain bail in equity, be more stringent than at common law ?

¶7Lastly it is argued that no bond was given, as required by the Act of March 1856, to respond to the defendant, by reason of the issuing of this ne exeat. No such ground was taken in the Court below. Non constat, but that the bond was duly taken and filed in the Clerk’s office.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

/23/ga/142 · .json · Public domain