Clay v. Clay
12 S.E. 1064, 86 Ga. 359, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 255
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
Clay v. Clay, 12 S.E. 1064, 86 Ga. 359, 1890 Ga. LEXIS 255 (Ga. 1890).
12 S.E. 1064 (Clay v. Clay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)