Brown v. Scarborough

Supreme Court of Georgia

Brown v. Scarborough

123 S.E. 605, 158 Ga. 301, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 136

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 13, 1924·No. No. 4203·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Gilbert, J.

“Under the ruling in Miller v. Almon, 123 Ga. 104 (50 S. E. 993), in order for this exemption of $300.00 to be effectual as against a waiver, it must have been set apart.” Peppers v. Cauthen, 143 Ga. 229, 234 (84 S. E. 477). The ruling above quoted is controlling on the sole issue in the case. The court did not err in refusing to grant a temporary injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concm', except Russell, O. J., dissenting. Strozier & Beaver and B. Oubbedge Snow, for plaintiff. B. W. Barnes, II. F. Bawls, and F. C. Collins, for defendants.

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

Gilbert, J.

“Under the ruling in Miller v. Almon, 123 Ga. 104 (50 S. E. 993), in order for this exemption of $300.00 to be effectual as against a waiver, it must have been set apart.” Peppers v. Cauthen, 143 Ga. 229, 234 (84 S. E. 477). The ruling above quoted is controlling on the sole issue in the case. The court did not err in refusing to grant a temporary injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concm', except Russell, O. J., dissenting. Strozier & Beaver and B. Oubbedge Snow, for plaintiff. B. W. Barnes, II. F. Bawls, and F. C. Collins, for defendants.

Brown v. Scarborough, 123 S.E. 605, 158 Ga. 301, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 136 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

123 S.E. 605 (Brown v. Scarborough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related