Atlanta & Carolina Railway v. Hollingsworth
84 S.E. 583, 143 Ga. 276, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 389
Opinion
1. Under the peculiar facts of this case, the court did not err in appointing a receiver.
2. Had the evidence which was rejected been admitted, it should not have changed the result.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Atlanta & Carolina Railway v. Hollingsworth, 84 S.E. 583, 143 Ga. 276, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 389 (Ga. 1915).
84 S.E. 583 (Atlanta & Carolina Railway v. Hollingsworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Servisco, Inc. v. R. B. M. of Atlanta, Inc.
250 S.E.2d 10 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)