Dow v. Cedartown Textiles Inc.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dow v. Cedartown Textiles Inc.

68 S.E.2d 712, 208 Ga. 668, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 301, 29 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2387

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 1952

DocketNo. 17679

StatusPublished

This text of 68 S.E.2d 712 (Dow v. Cedartown Textiles Inc.) 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

Dow v. Cedartown Textiles Inc., 68 S.E.2d 712, 208 Ga. 668, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 301, 29 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2387 (Ga. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Wyatt, Justice.

1. In the case against Richard Morrison there was no evidence that he had notice of the order of the court or of its terms. The evidence showed that the defendant was not an employee of Cedartown Textiles Inc., was not a member of the striking union, and had not served on the picket line at any timé, although he admitted that he had been down at the mill from time to time since the strike started. This wa's not sufficient’to show that he had notice of the order, and he can not, therefore, be held in contempt for violating it. The judgment holding this plaintiff in error in contempt was error and must be reversed.

2. All other questions raised in the instant case are controlled as to all other plaintiffs in error by the rulings made in the case of Williams v. Cedartown Textiles, ante, p. 659.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur.

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

Wyatt, Justice.

1. In the case against Richard Morrison there was no evidence that he had notice of the order of the court or of its terms. The evidence showed that the defendant was not an employee of Cedartown Textiles Inc., was not a member of the striking union, and had not served on the picket line at any timé, although he admitted that he had been down at the mill from time to time since the strike started. This wa's not sufficient’to show that he had notice of the order, and he can not, therefore, be held in contempt for violating it. The judgment holding this plaintiff in error in contempt was error and must be reversed.

2. All other questions raised in the instant case are controlled as to all other plaintiffs in error by the rulings made in the case of Williams v. Cedartown Textiles, ante, p. 659.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E.2d 712, 208 Ga. 668, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 301, 29 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dow-v-cedartown-textiles-inc-ga-1952.