Anderson v. Thompson
This text of 15 S.E.2d 890 (Anderson v. Thompson) 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
1. An injunction may issue in this State to restrain the cutting of timber, although the plaintiff may not have “perfect title”' as provided for in the “timber-cutter’s act” (Code, § 55-204), where the damages would be irreparable, or where the trespass is a continuing one. Camp v. Dixon, 112 Ga. 872 (38 S. E. 71, 52 L. R. A. 755); Gray Lumber Co. v. Gaskin, 122 Ga. 342 (50 S. E. 164); McConnell v. Jones Naval Stores Co., 125 Ga. 376 (54 S. E. 117); Wethington v. Baxter, 124 Ga. 1024 (53 S. E. 505); Bainbridge Farm Co. v. Ball, 165 Ga. 582 (141 S. E. 647); McRae v. Smith, 164 Ga. 23 (137 S. E. 390); Hart v. Lewis, 126 Ga. 439 (55 S. E. 189); Lewis v. Hutchinson, 127 Ga. 789 (56 S. E. 998). The allegations were sufficient to show title in the plaintiff, and to authorize an injunction under the principles above stated.. The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.
2. It does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in restraining *571 both, parties “from changing the present status of said timber and land,” pending final determination of the question of title between them.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 S.E.2d 890, 192 Ga. 570, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-thompson-ga-1941.