Bracewell v. Cook

16 S.E.2d 432, 192 Ga. 678, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 602
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 10, 1941
Docket13827.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 16 S.E.2d 432 (Bracewell v. Cook) 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.

Bluebook
Bracewell v. Cook, 16 S.E.2d 432, 192 Ga. 678, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 602 (Ga. 1941).

Opinion

Bell, Justice.

1. The petition stated a cause of action to enjoin a common or public nuisance, as defined in the Code, §§ 58-109, 58-110, and was not subject to demurrer for any reason urged.

2. The fact that a petition for injunction is not verified as required by the Code, § 81-110, does not as a matter of law demand its dismissal, but the petition may be retained in court and an injunction granted thereon, where “other satisfactory proofs” are submitted. Lee v. Clark, 49 Ga. 82 (2); Boykin v. Epstein, 87 Ga. 25 (13 S. E. 15); Martin v. Burgwyn, 88 Ga. 78 (13 S. E. 958). The statement to the contrary in McLauchlin v. McLauchlin, 128 Ga. 653 (58 S. E. 156), was obiter, and is not controlling.

3. The evidence showing the maintenance of a place of business, as alleged, existence therein of a counter and drinking glasses, possession of several gallons of whisky under the counter, and sales therefrom by the drink, the evidence including also a certified copy of an “internal revenue special tax receipt,” the judge was authorized to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant “from possessing, storing, keeping, or selling any intoxicating liquors in said premises as described in the within petition.” Code, § 58-113. The circumstances enumerated *679 were sufficient to show intention as to future conduct, consistently with the ruling in Thornton v. Skelton, 149 Ga. 93 (99 S. E. 299), in which a similar judgment was reversed, but in which case no such circumstances appeared. Judgment affirmed.

No. 13827. September 10, 1941. B. I. Stephens, for plaintiff in error. J. Eugene Goolc, solicitor-general, and Emory S. Baldwin Jr., contra. All the Justices conour.

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

Related

MICHAEL PARNELL v. SHERMAN & HEMSTREET, INC.
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2022
Agri-Cycle LLC v. Couch
663 S.E.2d 175 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008)
McDowell v. State
660 S.E.2d 24 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
BEA Systems, Inc. v. WebMethods, Inc.
595 S.E.2d 87 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
Edwards v. Edwards
180 S.E.2d 358 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Wright v. Wheatley
77 S.E.2d 435 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
Norris v. State Ex Rel. Willingham
50 S.E.2d 22 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Harper v. Atlanta Milling Company
48 S.E.2d 89 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Sprayberry v. Wyatt
45 S.E.2d 625 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Kilgore v. Paschall
43 S.E.2d 520 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Williams v. Porter
42 S.E.2d 475 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Elder v. Stark
37 S.E.2d 598 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Davis v. Stark
31 S.E.2d 592 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Pullen v. Meadors
27 S.E.2d 655 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Jacobs v. Rittenbaum
20 S.E.2d 425 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 S.E.2d 432, 192 Ga. 678, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bracewell-v-cook-ga-1941.