American Oil Co. v. Hulme
This text of 180 S.E. 768 (American Oil Co. v. Hulme) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
“The office of an injunction being, under the Code of this State, merely to restrain and not to compel the performance of an act, this remedy is not available for the purpose of evicting a party from the actual possession of land, the right to which is in dispute, between himself and another.” Vaughn v. Yawn, 103 Ga. 557 (29 S. E. 759). Code of 1933, § 55-110; Beacham v. Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad Co., 125 Ga. 362 (54 S. E. 157) ; Trudie Turpentine Co. v. Pearson, 159 Ga. 387 (125 S. E. 862) ; Beck v. Kah, 163 Ga. 365 (136 S. E. 160). There was some evidence to authorize the application of this principle, and the judge did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction. The facts do not bring the case, as a matter of law, within the principle applied in MacKenzie v. Minis, 132 Ga. 323 (6) (63 S. E. 900, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1003, 16 Ann. Cas. 723) ; Marshall v. Matthews, 149 Ga. 370 (100 S. E. 103), and similar cases.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
180 S.E. 768, 180 Ga. 768, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-oil-co-v-hulme-ga-1935.