Anthony v. City of Atlanta

11 S.E.2d 197, 190 Ga. 841, 1940 Ga. LEXIS 600
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 26, 1940·No. 13510.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

G-ricb, Justice.

An equitable petition was brought by B. Anthony, the owner and operator of a beauty-shop known as Anthony Permanent Waving Salon, against the City of Atlanta et al., seeking to enjoin enforcement of the penal provisions of an ordinance fixing hours of work and minimum prices to be charged by operators of such beauty-shops for specified services, and to enjoin threatened criminal prosecutions for violations thereof. There appears to be nothing alleged which takes the case out of the general rule that courts of equity will not enjoin a criminal prosecution. The judg,ment sustaining, .the demurrer to the petition is affirmed. See Powell v. Hartsfield, 190 Ga. 839.

*842 Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., who dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anthony v. City of Atlanta, 11 S.E.2d 197, 190 Ga. 841, 1940 Ga. LEXIS 600 (Ga. 1940).

11 S.E.2d 197 (Anthony v. City of Atlanta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stephens v. City Council of Augusta
20 S.E.2d 80 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
City of Abbeville v. Renfroe
15 S.E.2d 782 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Flint v. City Council of Augusta
14 S.E.2d 859 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
City of Albany v. Lippitt
13 S.E.2d 807 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)