LAW.coLAW.co

HERRINGTON et al. v. BRYAN

Supreme Court of Georgia1929-11-13No. No. 7328
169 Ga. 382

Summary

Holding. The court reversed the judgment and held that the superior court of Laurens County lacked jurisdiction to entertain the equitable petition. In cases seeking to enjoin a tax execution sale where no misconduct by the levying officer is alleged, venue properly lies in the county where the fi. fa. holder resides, not where the land is located or where the plaintiff resides.

Mrs. Bryan sought an injunction in Laurens County Superior Court to prevent a sheriff and a tax fi. fa. holder from selling land that she had purchased from the original taxpayer in 1928. She contended that the defendants knew of her ownership rights and of personal property belonging to the original owner that could satisfy the tax debt, but proceeded with the land sale anyway. The defendants demurred on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that only Fulton County (where the fi. fa. holder resided) had proper venue for the case.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Proper venue for equitable action to enjoin tax execution sale
  • Whether levying officer is a necessary party in injunction proceedings
  • Jurisdiction based on defendant's residence in equity cases

Procedural posture

The trial court overruled the defendants' demurrer to the petition and refused to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds; the case was appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Gilbert, J.

Mrs. M. L. Bryan filed in the superior court of Laurens County a petition against W. H. Adams as sheriff of said county, and H. S. Herrington, a resident of Fulton County. She alleged that the sheriff of Laurens County, under an execution for State and County taxes for the year 1927, had levied upon described land; that the land was given in for taxes for the year 1927 as the-property of Mrs. W. D. Hobbs, who also gave in for taxes described. personal property; that the tax-collector duly issued a tax fi. fa., which was subsequently transferred to H. S. Herrington, who paid the full amount of the tax and caused the same to be entered in the general execution docket in Laurens County; that in September, 1928, Mrs. Hobbs sold to petitioner described land including the land now levied upon, of which petitioner is in possession. She prays that the sheriff and Herrington fie enjoined from selling this land, on the ground that the defendants are proceeding to sell the land for taxes and thereby to damage plaintiff, “with full knowledge of the plaintiffs rights in the land, and with full knowledge of the location of the personal property of Mrs. Hobbs subject to said tax fi. fa., after your petitioner had notified him of her rights therein, and after petitioner had demanded the levy upon the property in the possession of the defendant in fi. fa.” The notice to Herring-ton as to the personal property was contained in a letter dated February 9, 1929, addressed to A. P. Herrington & Son, Atlanta, Ga., and signed by Charles E. Baggett, containing the following: “Mr. W. D. Hobbs is now located at Thomaston, Georgia, and all the property has been sold except his household goods, which he carried from near Dexter to Thomaston, Georgia. That these taxes remained unpaid has just come to the knowledge of Mrs. Bryan.” A demurrer to the petition was overruled, and the defendants excepted. One ground of the demurrer was “that the superior court of Laurens County is without jurisdiction to entertain said action, but that the superior court of Fulton County only has jurisdiction therein.”

“Equity cases shall be tried in the county where a defendant resides against whom substantial relief is prayed.” Constitution art. 6, sec. 16, par. 3; Civil Code (1910), § 6540. The venue of an equitable petition to enjoin the levy of an .execution and the sale of the land levied upon, where no misconduct on the part of the levying pfficer is alleged, is in the county of the residence of the plaintiff in ii. fa., if a resident of this State. The levying officer in such case is not a necessary party, and the relief prayed for against him is merely incidental. Malsby v. Studstill, 127 Ga. 726 (56 S. E. 988) ; Bank of East Point v. Dupre, 152 Ga. 547 (2) (110 S. E. 240). Applying the foregoing principles, the judge erred in overruling the demurrer and in refusing to dismiss the action on the ground that the superior court of Laurens County was without jurisdiction.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.