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

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 9, 1934·No. No 9855·Published

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.

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

Pincite

175 S.E. 909 (Brown v. Tom Huston Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.