Georgia, Supreme Court, Macon : Nisbet et al v Walker, February 1848
- Published
- Georgia : Supreme Court, 1848.
- Physical Description
- 1 online resource
- Additional Creators
- Adam Matthew Digital (Firm) and Georgia Archives
Access Online
- Series
- Summary
- Joel Walker filed a bill in the court below in 1847 against Eugenius Nisbet and three others because he had not been paid the sum of [dollars] 4,689.40 plus interest owing to him. This was a case about the discharge of the proceeds of the sale of substantial property to satisfy various debts. There was also a complaint of usury. A trust deed had been made on 8 December 1841 by Richard K Hines to Eugenius A Nisbet and James A Nisbet whereby they took all of Hines's estate and property into their possession for the purpose of selling it to make a just distribution amongst his creditors. Counsel for the defendants argued that Walker had waived the lien of his prior judgment at law by consenting to the sale of the slaves and other property by the trustees. The slaves were sold at the Macon courthouse door in 1842, except for one, Dan, who was privately sold for the sum of [dollars] 1,150. Walker alleged that the sale of the slaves had yielded a sum of [dollars] 30,000 or more, but the defendants said that the true figure was [dollars] 20,600 in total for the sale of all the slaves. Walker also alleged that the real estate sold had fetched a further [dollars] 35,000 or more. The complainant was one of the creditors and he argued that the money owing to him dated back longer than that of any of the other creditors and that he eas therefore entitled to preference. This was disputed. Walker also claimed that the debts of other creditors had been satisfied whilst he had been ignored. In 1843 Walker had tried to get his money back by a levy upon the River Plantation which was sold and bought by Augustus S Wingfield for the trifling sum of [dollars] 100. This money was then paid to the Central Bank of Georgia, but Walker alleged that the debt owing to them had already been paid off. The judgment of the lower court was reversed because the Supreme Court ruled that the court below had erred in refusing to allow an enquiry into the allegations of usury. The question of such excessive interest had to be taken into consideration in determining the correct amount of principal and legal interest to be paid to the creditor.
- Subject(s)
- Other Subject(s)
- Reproduction Note
- Electronic reproduction. Marlborough, Wiltshire : Adam Matthew Digital, 2007. Digitized from a copy held by the Georgia Archives.
- Location of Originals
- Georgia Archives
- Copyright Note
- Material sourced from the Georgia Archives
View MARC record | catkey: 41988161