Dickson v. Warren Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dickson v. Warren Co.

189 S.E. 839, 183 Ga. 746, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 407

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1937

DocketNo. 11555

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 839 (Dickson v. Warren Co.) 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

Dickson v. Warren Co., 189 S.E. 839, 183 Ga. 746, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 407 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

1. “The granting and continuing of injunctions shall always rest in the sound discretion of the judg'e, according to the circumstances of each case. The power shall be prudently and cautiously exercised, and except in clear and urgent cases should not be resorted to.” Code, § 55-108. A judgment denying an injunction will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court when it appears that the decision of the judge was based on conflicting evidence, and that there was no abuse of discretion. Hightower v. Lane, 114 Ga. 348 (40 S. E. 238). Under the pleadings and the evidence, this ease comes within the rule just stated. The discretion of the judge in refusing an interlocutory injunction will not be disturbed.

[747]*747No. 11555. January 15, 1937. Rehearing denied February 16, 1937.

2. The evidence did not demand a finding that the acts complained of as having hfeen committed on Sunday were in pursuit of the ordinary calling of the defendant, or that the acts constituted a nuisance as defined in the Code, § 72-101, causing special injury to the plaintiff. Hill v. McBurney Oil & Fertilizer Co., 112 Ga. 788, 793 (38 S. E. 42, 52 L. R. A. 398).

Judgment affi7-med.

All the Justices conetir. Russell, G. J., concurs in the result. Jaclcson L. Barwiclc and J. Ira Harrdson, for plaintiff. Yirlyn B. Moore Jr., for defendant.

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

Atkinson, Justice.

1. “The granting and continuing of injunctions shall always rest in the sound discretion of the judg'e, according to the circumstances of each case. The power shall be prudently and cautiously exercised, and except in clear and urgent cases should not be resorted to.” Code, § 55-108. A judgment denying an injunction will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court when it appears that the decision of the judge was based on conflicting evidence, and that there was no abuse of discretion. Hightower v. Lane, 114 Ga. 348 (40 S. E. 238). Under the pleadings and the evidence, this ease comes within the rule just stated. The discretion of the judge in refusing an interlocutory injunction will not be disturbed.

[747]*747No. 11555. January 15, 1937. Rehearing denied February 16, 1937.

2. The evidence did not demand a finding that the acts complained of as having hfeen committed on Sunday were in pursuit of the ordinary calling of the defendant, or that the acts constituted a nuisance as defined in the Code, § 72-101, causing special injury to the plaintiff. Hill v. McBurney Oil & Fertilizer Co., 112 Ga. 788, 793 (38 S. E. 42, 52 L. R. A. 398).

Judgment affi7-med.

All the Justices conetir. Russell, G. J., concurs in the result. Jaclcson L. Barwiclc and J. Ira Harrdson, for plaintiff. Yirlyn B. Moore Jr., for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 839, 183 Ga. 746, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickson-v-warren-co-ga-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack