Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Cathcart

35 S.E. 640, 111 Ga. 818, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 751
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 9, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 S.E. 640 (Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Cathcart) 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
Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Cathcart, 35 S.E. 640, 111 Ga. 818, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 751 (Ga. 1900).

Opinion

Little, J.

No legal reason appears from the allegations of the petition why the plaintiff, without seeking an injunction, is not possessed of an adequate remedy at law to prevent the enforcement of the executions issued on the judgments which it claims were illegally rendered; nor do the facts disclose a case in which the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction to protect it from a multiplicity of suits.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring. Petition for injunction. Before Judge Lumpkin. Fulton county. . January 13, 1900. Dorsey, Brewster & Howell, Hugh M. Dorsey, and Arthur Hey-man, for plaintiff. M. A. Hale and T. C. Battle, for defendant.

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

Related

Chadwick v. Dolinoff
64 S.E.2d 76 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Johnson v. Gilmer
39 S.E. 469 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 S.E. 640, 111 Ga. 818, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-hamilton-dayton-ry-co-v-cathcart-ga-1900.