Casey v. McDaniel

113 S.E. 804, 154 Ga. 181, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 323
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 16, 1922·No. No. 2752·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. It has been held by this court that Where two parties entered into a written contract, whereby one of them was to let the other have fifty acres of land, and was to furnish sufficient stock to cultivate it, and the other was to furnish the labor, and they were to divide the crops, if the former failed to furnish the necessary plow-stock and took charge of the crops, in the absence of any allegation of insolvency, there was an ample remedy at law, and a resort to equity was unnecessary.” Nicholson v. Cook, 76 Ga. 24. See also Bussell V. Bishop, 152 Ga. 428 (110 S. E. 174). Applying the principle above stated, the judge did not err in refusing a temporary injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Casey v. McDaniel, 113 S.E. 804, 154 Ga. 181, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 323 (Ga. 1922).

113 S.E. 804 (Casey v. McDaniel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bedgood v. Stevens
36 S.E.2d 793 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Lyles v. Watson
7 S.E.2d 909 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Hanson v. Fletcher
190 S.E. 29 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)