Clay v. Clay
12 S.E. 1064, 86 Ga. 359, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 255
This text of 12 S.E. 1064 (Clay v. Clay) 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
Clay v. Clay, 12 S.E. 1064, 86 Ga. 359, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 255 (Ga. 1890).
Opinion
There was no abuse of discretion in denying an interlocutory injunction and receiver. Under the doctrine of lis pendens the fruits of the litigation, if any, as to the corpus of the real estate will be secure]; and as to income, choses in action, etc., the solvency of one of the defendants affords reasonable security against loss. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Ingram & LeGrand Lumber Co. v. McAllister
4 S.E.2d 558 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Coleman v. Law
154 S.E. 445 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
West v. Mercer
60 S.E. 859 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Bell v. Sappington
36 S.E. 780 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
12 S.E. 1064, 86 Ga. 359, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-clay-ga-1890.