
    William H. Chappell, adm’r, etc., plaintiff in error, vs. William S. Akin, defendant in error.
    When a bill was filed by a creditor against an executor, praying for an injunction and the appointment of a Receiver, alleging that the executor was insolvent, unmarried, extravagant, engaged in no settled business, and intending soon to move to Honduras, and was badly managing his own business, as well as that of his testatrix, that he had said he would sell the property of his testatrix, realize the money, and leave without paying any of the debts of the estate : Held, that the
    Court below erred in dismissing the bill.
    Equity. Eeceiver. Decided by Judge Harrell. Webster Superior Court. March Term, 1869.
    Chappell, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of Septimus W. Sanders, deceased, by his bill, made the following averments: On the 23rd. of February, 1864, William S. Akin, of said county, made and delivered to said Sanders his promissory note for $3,400 00, upon which a judgment, in favor of Sanders, was rendered in September, 1866, for $1,000 00; that William S. Akin appeared, giving, as his security, Elizabeth Akin, who afterwards died testate, owning personalty and realty worth say $5,000 00; that, by said will, she nominated her son, said William S. Akin, as her executor, and bequeathed to him, for life, the residuum, (except the cash on hand,) after paying her debts; that, on the 4th o February, 1867, said William S. Akin obtained his letters as such executor ; that some time thereafter he sold the personalty for cash, (of which he made no return ;) that, on the 2nd of September, 1867, he obtained an order for the sale of the realty, consisting of one thousand acres of land in said county, and thereunder he has advertised the lands for sale, that no debts are pressing on said estate so as to necessitate the sale of the lands, that said William S. Akin has given no security as executor, is wholly insolvent, extravagant, unmarried, in no settled 'business, and, (as the complainant believed,) intended moving to Honduras,' that he is mismanaging his own business, and that of the estate, and, (as complainant is advised,) has said that he would sell the testator's property, get the pi’oceeds, and leave without paying any of the debts; that he will recover on said note, and wishes to bind said property to pay the eventual condemnation money. He prays an answer from said William S. Akin, as to what he had gotten from said estate, and what he had done with it, and that a Receiver be appointed to receive the assets of the estate, and collect the rents of said lands, until said executor should give security for his proper management of the estate, or, if he failed so to do, until an administrator own testamento annexo should be appointed, and that meanwhile said executor be enjoined from selling the lands, and from managing the assets of the estate.
    (The will gave this property to said executor for life, not subject to his debts, contracts, or liabilities, with remainder to his children alive when he died, or, upon failure of such children, then to Mary L. Cato and her children.) Judge John T. Clark sanctioned the bill and appointed a Receiver, requiring him to give bond, and ordered injunction to issue as prayed for, and that said executor surrender the assets to the Receiver, unless the executor gave bond for the faithful discharge of his duties as such executor, provided complainant should give to said executor bond of indemnity against damage by reason of said injunction and Receiver.
    No answer was filed. The complainant’s solicitors moved to take said bill pro oonfesso. Upon hearing the bill, the Court refused to grant such order, and further, upon his own motion, dismissed the bill. The record does not show upon what ground he made the dismissal; but it was said, in argument, that he did so because there was no equity in the bill. The refusal of the order and the dismissal are assigned as error.
    J. S. Wimberly, S. H. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error, cited Johns vs. Johns, 23 Ga. R., 31.
    Blanford & Miller, for defendant.
   Warner. J.

The error assigned to the judgment of the Court below, in this case, is the dismissal of the complainant’s bill. A Court of Equity, in this State, may, by writ of injunction, restrain the action of a private individual which is illegal or contrary to equity and goods conscience, and for which no adequate remedy is provided at law: Revised Code, sec. 3149. The defendant was the debtor of complainant against whom a verdict had been recovered for $1,000. The defendant had entered an appeal from that verdict, giving his'testatrix, who was then living, as his security for the eventual condemnation money. After her death, he became her executor, and, from the allegations made in the complainant’s bill, equity and good conscience require that he should be restrained from squandering, and disposing of the property of his testatrix, so as not to defeat the collection of the complainant’s debt when his remedy at law, under the peculiar facts of the case, would not be adequate for his complete protection. In our judgment, it was error in the Court below in dismissing the complainant’s bill.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.  