green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Plainville Brick Co. v. Williams
The judgment of the trial court was reversed, this court holding: “Where a power of sale contained in a mortgage provided that the mortgagee should be authorized, upon the happening of a certain contingency, to ‘take possession’ of the land described in the mortgage, ‘and, after advertising it’ in a designated newspaper ‘once a week for four weeks, to sell the same,’ etc., the provision was complied with where the advertisement of sale was published'in the designated paper once a week for four weeks immediately preceding the day when the sale took place, although the number of da…
discussed
Cited "see"
Howser Mill Homes, LLC v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
MPP Investments, supra; see Proudfit v. Oliver, 150 Ga. 707 ( 105 SE 241 ) (1920) (where the advertisement of foreclosure sale did not conform to the requirements of the security deed, the foreclosure sale was invalid and did not divest title of the grantor to the property). 132 Ga. 296 ( 64 SE 82 ) (1909).
discussed
Cited "see"
Howser Mill Homes, LLC v. Branch Banking and Trust
The defendant can not complain that the plaintiff treats as void a sale which the law pronounces invalid, and proceeds to sell again. . . .The second sale could hardly have had the 4 Id. at 560-561 (1), 563 (4). 5 OCGA § 44-14-162 (a); see OCGA §§ 9-13-140 (a) and 9-13-141 regarding specific requirements for advertising judicial or sheriff’s sales. 6 MPP Investments, supra; see Proudfit v. Oliver, 150 Ga. 707 (105 SE241) (1920) (where the advertisement of foreclosure sale did not conform to the requirements of the security deed, the foreclosure sale was invalid and did not divest title of…
cited
Cited "see"
Heist v. Dunlap Company
See Proudfit v. Oliver, 150 Ga. 707 ( 105 S. E. 241 ); Bush v. Growers Finance Corporation, 176 Ga. 99 ( 167 S. E. 105 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marshall, trustees
v.
Clements
v.
Clements
No. 1837.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Dec 15, 1920.
R. As Hendricks and J. P. Knight, for plaintiffs., W. D. Buie and J. D. Lovett, for defendants.
Eish.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Eish, C. J.
A controversy as to the location of a site for a school building and the erection of a schoolhouse thereon, in a school district wherein an election has been held to determine the question whether bonds should be issrxed for the purpose of building a schoolhouse, and the result thereof declared in favor of such issuance, must be determined under existing laws respecting the administration of the public- . school system; and a court of equity will not entertain jurisdiction of the subject, but will remand the parties to the controversy to the statutory remedy. Edge v. Garrett, 138 Ga. 93 (74 S. E. 758), .and cases cited. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, the refusal of an interlocutory injunction was not error.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.