Bank of Alapaha v. Purvis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bank of Alapaha v. Purvis

173 S.E. 103, 178 Ga. 284, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 38

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 13, 1934·No. No. 9720·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. The petition as amended failed to allege ground for injunctive relief. In view of the general demurrers which the court had under consideration at the interlocutory hearing, it was erroneous to continue the restraining order, which in effect was the grant of a temporary injunction.

2. The foregoing ruling deals with a controlling question in the case and it is unnecessary to rule on the assignment of error relating to admissibility of evidence. Judgment reversed.

AU the Justices concur. E. B. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. The petition as amended failed to allege ground for injunctive relief. In view of the general demurrers which the court had under consideration at the interlocutory hearing, it was erroneous to continue the restraining order, which in effect was the grant of a temporary injunction.

2. The foregoing ruling deals with a controlling question in the case and it is unnecessary to rule on the assignment of error relating to admissibility of evidence. Judgment reversed.

AU the Justices concur. E. B. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Bank of Alapaha v. Purvis, 173 S.E. 103, 178 Ga. 284, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 38 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

173 S.E. 103 (Bank of Alapaha v. Purvis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related