JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Rule that equity follows the law has become first maxim of equity. Lewis v. Board of Educ., 183 Ga. 687, 189 S.E. 233 (1936).

Equity is not antagonistic to the law, but follows the law. Irwin v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 204 Ga. 582, 50 S.E.2d 354 (1948).

While equity follows the law as to limitations of actions, neither laches nor the statute of limitations will run against one in peaceable possession of property under a claim of ownership for delay in resorting to the courts to establish his rights. Crow v. Whitfield, 105 Ga. App. 436, 124 S.E.2d 648 (1962).

A judge could not refuse to grant an injunction to which a party was entitled under the law, unless that party would agree to waive the incompetency declared by statute of a witness as to the particular testimony sought to be delivered by him, as equity is not antagonistic to the law, but follows the law. Ferrell v. Wight, 187 Ga. 360, 200 S.E. 271 (1938).

A court of equity will not set aside a judgment, although obtained by willful and corrupt perjury, unless it appears that the perjurer has been convicted of such perjury, and unless it appears that a judgment could not have been rendered without the perjured testimony. Hutchings v. Roquemore, 171 Ga. 359, 155 S.E. 675 (1930).

Where an unmarried man procures a life insurance policy on his own life in which his mother is named beneficiary, and the policy gives the insured the right to change the beneficiary at any time, and subsequently as a consideration for marriage he agrees to substitute his wife as beneficiary in the insurance policy and tells his wife that he has made the change, but later dies without ever having attempted to have the beneficiary changed, the mother is vested with title to the proceeds of the policy upon the death of the insured, and nothing that the insurer can do thereafter can destroy or impair the mother's title thereto; and a court of equity is required, in a contest between the mother and the wife, to award the proceeds of the insurance policy to the mother. Loyd v. Loyd, 203 Ga. 775, 48 S.E.2d 365 (1948).

In a contract suit against a nonresident of Georgia who could not be served personally, praying for a temporary receiver to take charge of certain securities and hold them subject to the order of the court and for other relief where legal attachment was impossible and a court of equity intervened, the court was authorized to require a bond of the plaintiff, similar to an attachment bond. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Tow, 71 Ga. App. 178, 30 S.E.2d 433 (1944).

Between a debtor and his judgment creditor the controlling equity lies in favor of the creditor to have satisfaction of his judgment and a court of equity will rarely, if ever, interfere with the creditor in his use of the legal means afforded him for the collection of his debt. Shedden v. National Florence Crittenton Mission, 191 Ga. 428, 12 S.E.2d 618 (1940).

Since equity follows the analogy of the law, when fraud is charged, the period of limitations applicable to an action for fraud is the same as that which would apply to an action for the land, that is seven years from the discovery of the fraud. Slade v. Barber, 200 Ga. 405, 37 S.E.2d 143 (1946).

Equity will not give relief when to do so would violate express provisions of a statute. Lewis v. Board of Educ., 183 Ga. 687, 189 S.E. 233 (1936).

Power to levy and collect taxes is exclusively a legislative function, and unless authorized by statute, a court of equity is without power to foreclose a lien for taxes and order a sale of the property; no such power having been conferred by statute on a court of equity in this state, the court erred in decreeing that land be sold by the sheriff for payment of state and county taxes. Kirk v. Bray, 181 Ga. 814, 184 S.E. 733 (1935).

Delay alone is never enough to show laches where there is applicable statute of limitations. Clover Realty Co. v. J.L. Todd Auction Co., 240 Ga. 124, 239 S.E.2d 682 (1977).

RESEARCH REFERENCES