Brown v. Tom Huston Corp.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Brown v. Tom Huston Corp.

175 S.E. 909, 179 Ga. 354, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 288

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 9, 1934

DocketNo 9855

StatusPublished

This text of 175 S.E. 909 (Brown v. Tom Huston Corp.) 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

Brown v. Tom Huston Corp., 175 S.E. 909, 179 Ga. 354, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 288 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

Under the pleadings and the evidence the court did not err in granting an interlocutory injunction to prevent a sale of property under the power contained in the security deed, thus preserving the status pending the trial upon the issues involved. The record does not show sufficient cause for the appointment of a receiver.

Judgment affirmed m pari and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., who dissents. O. L. Shepard, for plaintiffs in error. Hatcher & Hatcher and Felton & Felton, contra.

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

Russell, C. J.

Under the pleadings and the evidence the court did not err in granting an interlocutory injunction to prevent a sale of property under the power contained in the security deed, thus preserving the status pending the trial upon the issues involved. The record does not show sufficient cause for the appointment of a receiver.

Judgment affirmed m pari and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., who dissents. O. L. Shepard, for plaintiffs in error. Hatcher & Hatcher and Felton & Felton, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 909, 179 Ga. 354, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-tom-huston-corp-ga-1934.