Beckwith v. Blanchard
This text of 7 S.E. 224 (Beckwith v. Blanchard) 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
This was a second application for an injunction. The first had been refused too long to bring it to this court. When the second was made, it was upon an amendment to the bill which simply alleged an additional fact; that is, that one of the complainants had not been served personally with a rule to foreclose a mortgage. That fact was as well known when the first injunction was applied for as when the second was applied for; and we think that the [304]*304judge did not err in failing to vary his decision upon the application by reason of this one additional fact; because it might have been and should have been alleged when the first application was made.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 S.E. 224, 79 Ga. 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckwith-v-blanchard-ga-1888.