Consolidated Credit Corp. v. Short

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Consolidated Credit Corp. v. Short

161 S.E.2d 448, 117 Ga. App. 574, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1145

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1968

Docket43370

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 S.E.2d 448 (Consolidated Credit Corp. v. Short) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Consolidated Credit Corp. v. Short, 161 S.E.2d 448, 117 Ga. App. 574, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1145 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

The petition in this action prays for, in addition to punitive damages, an injunction against the defendants, a credit loan company and its agent, from “molesting, harassing and threatening ... by telephone, letters, or in person” the plaintiff, who signed as security a promissory note which subsequently became in default and who, at the time of her signing the note and thereafter, was a married woman. The petition is not for a declaratory judgment; therefore the prayer for the injunction would not be an interlocutory device until a decision on the merits of the petition. The case is, therefore, of the class of which the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction and it is, accordingly transferred to that court.

Transferred to the Supreme Court.

Eberhardt and Whitman, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

The petition in this action prays for, in addition to punitive damages, an injunction against the defendants, a credit loan company and its agent, from “molesting, harassing and threatening ... by telephone, letters, or in person” the plaintiff, who signed as security a promissory note which subsequently became in default and who, at the time of her signing the note and thereafter, was a married woman. The petition is not for a declaratory judgment; therefore the prayer for the injunction would not be an interlocutory device until a decision on the merits of the petition. The case is, therefore, of the class of which the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction and it is, accordingly transferred to that court.

Transferred to the Supreme Court.

Eberhardt and Whitman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E.2d 448, 117 Ga. App. 574, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-credit-corp-v-short-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack