Cubbedge & Hazelhurst v. Adams
42 Ga. 124
Opinion
In reviewing the allegations made in the complainant’s bill, the answer of the defendant, and the affidavits filed by the respective parties in support of, and in opposition to, the granting the injunction prayed for, we find no error which will authorize this Court to control the sound discretion of the Judge below, in refusing to grant the injunction.
Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cubbedge & Hazelhurst v. Adams, 42 Ga. 124 (Ga. 1871).
42 Ga. 124 (Cubbedge & Hazelhurst v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Price v. EMPIRE LAND COMPANY
126 S.E.2d 626 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1962)
Irwin v. Willis
43 S.E.2d 691 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Keeter v. Bank of Ellijay
9 S.E.2d 761 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Ingram & LeGrand Lumber Co. v. McAllister
4 S.E.2d 558 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Levitsky v. Turk
187 S.E. 107 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Tanner Grocery Co. v. Stewart
121 S.E. 416 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Peterson v. Lott
64 S.E. 268 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Guilmartin v. Middle Georgia & Atlantic Railway Co.
29 S.E. 189 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
DeLacy v. Hurst, Purnell & Co.
9 S.E. 1052 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1889)
Orton v. Madden
75 Ga. 83 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1886)
Comer & Co. v. Coates & Co.
69 Ga. 491 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1882)