Armour Packing Co. v. Lovell
44 S.E. 990, 118 Ga. 164, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 483
Opinion
1. An execution against “ James E. Eeps, agent for the Armour Packing Co.,” is against James E. Leps alone, the words, “ agent for,” etc.,, being merely descriptio personæ. Maxwell v. Collier, 115 Ga. 304.
2. Where a party has an adequate remedy by claim, the successful prosecution, of which would be as effectual as the equitable proceeding, he is not entitled to an injunction, Beysiegel v. Rome Mutual Loan Association 113 Ga. 1071.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Armour Packing Co. v. Lovell, 44 S.E. 990, 118 Ga. 164, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 483 (Ga. 1903).
44 S.E. 990 (Armour Packing Co. v. Lovell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Burns v. Burns
77 S.E.2d 560 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Sudderth v. Harris
181 S.E. 122 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Morris v. Reed
82 S.E. 314 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Candler v. DeGive
66 S.E. 244 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)