Bowles v. Etheridge
168 S.E. 769, 176 Ga. 660
Opinion
“Mandamus will not lie to compel a public officer to do an act not clearly commanded by law, nor is one entitled to the writ unless it be made to appear that he has a clear legal right to have the particular act performed, the doing of which he seeks to have enforced.” Cureton v. Wheeler, 172 Ga. 879 (159 S. E. 283). It was not error to refuse a mandamus absolute.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bowles v. Etheridge, 168 S.E. 769, 176 Ga. 660 (Ga. 1933).
168 S.E. 769 (Bowles v. Etheridge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jowers v. Griffin
138 S.E.2d 370 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Trussell v. Martin
63 S.E.2d 361 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)