Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Cathcart
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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.