Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Ga. 9

Sessions v. Mansfield

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 15, 1864

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1864-03-15

<p>S., as guardian for V., filed a bill in equity against M. as administrator of S., to recover a distributive share of the estate of S., to which it was claimed that V. was entitled. P. and S. also filed a bill in equity against the administrator and guardian, claiming said distributive share as purchasers of the same from V., and enjoining the administrator from paying said distributive share to the guardian. Pending these bills, the administrator moved the Court to grant an order allowing him to pay the fund im his hands into Court, to abide the final decree in said cases, which order, was granted by the Court:</p> <p>Meld, That the Court did right.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1864-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1957

5 state decisions

101864187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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, C. J.,

¶2delivering tbe opinion.

¶3Was the Court right in ordering the fund in the hands of William L. Mansfield to be paid over to the clerk? The application was made in April, 1863, when the condition of the currency was good, and therefore the bona fides of the motion then made could not be questioned. No question was raised upon this point. Why should not the stakeholder be relieved then of an embarrassment brought upon him by the counter-claimants to the $6,992 04, who were litigating with one another, and in the settlement of whose equities Mansfield had no interest? But it is contended that he should have filed a bill of interpleader, and perhaps this would have been more regular, yet the result was the same. All the parties were before the Court and had an opportunity of being heard, and it was even submitted to them by the Court, that if they would agree upon any disposition of the money until a decree could be rendered, it would be sanctioned. They declined interfering, and we think the Court was right in directing it to be paid into the clerk’s office.

¶4Let the judgment be affirmed.

/33/ga/9 · .json · Public domain