Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 Ga. 341

Wyche v. Green

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 15, 1861

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1861-03-15

Bill for discovery, relief and injunction, in Upson Superior Court, and decision by Judge Cabaniss, at the November Term, 1860.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1964

14 state decisions

4018611870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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.—

Jenkins, J.,

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3Plaintiffs in error having filed a bill to have a deed or bill of sale reformed, by correcting an error prejudicial to the rights of themselves and several others, (the brothers and sisters of one of the complainants,) subsequently filed an amendment to the original bill, charging fraud and collusion between the defendant and the brothers and sisters of .said complainants, and praying that the latter be made parties defendant, and that the Court will decree, not only a reformation of the instrument, but a distribution of the property thereby conveyed then in the possession of the original defendant, among the complainants and the defendants noAV sought to be made parties. To this amendment defendants demurred, and the demurrer having been sustained, plaintiffs except. The question has been argued on both sides Avith reference to the neAv allegations and additional prayers for relief made in the amended bill. But in our view, if the original bill had for its single object the reformation of the instrument, in a matter seriously affecting the rights of the complainants and *345several others similarly situated, those others were necessary parties, and if not made parties originally, should be after-wards brought in. The rule is, that all persons having a legal or equitable interest in the subject matter of .the suit, must be made parties. And if those having an interest identical with the complainants refuse to join, they must be made defendants. Courts of equity will entertain bills of equity against defendants, having directly opposite interests. 2d Story’s Equity, 15-26. It is manifest that the parties now sought to be brought in are directly and materially interested in the subject matter of the suit. Ho court of equity should undertake to reform a written instrument conveying title to property, in an essential matter, without having before it all the parties to be affected by the proposed reformation.

¶4Believing, therefore, that the defendants now sought to be made parties should be brought in, to cure a defect in the original bill, if for no other reason, we think the Court erred in sustaining the demurrer.

¶5Let the judgment be reversed.

/32/ga/341 · .json · Public domain