Bennett v. Dickey & Martin

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bennett v. Dickey & Martin

125 S.E. 455, 159 Ga. 267, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 428

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided November 15, 1924·No. No. 4406·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The discretion of the trial judge in granting or refusing an injunction at the interlocutory hearing, where the evidence is conflicting, will not be interfered with unless it is made to appear that there was an abuse of discretion. In this ease it does not appear that the .discretion of the trial judge was abused.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. B. A. Moore, for plaintiff. B. B. Chastain, for defendants. .

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

Gilbert, J.

The discretion of the trial judge in granting or refusing an injunction at the interlocutory hearing, where the evidence is conflicting, will not be interfered with unless it is made to appear that there was an abuse of discretion. In this ease it does not appear that the .discretion of the trial judge was abused.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. B. A. Moore, for plaintiff. B. B. Chastain, for defendants. .

Bennett v. Dickey & Martin, 125 S.E. 455, 159 Ga. 267, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 428 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

125 S.E. 455 (Bennett v. Dickey & Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related