East v. Henry Darling Inc.
136 S.E. 895, 163 Ga. 760, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 58
This text of 136 S.E. 895 (East v. Henry Darling 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
East v. Henry Darling Inc., 136 S.E. 895, 163 Ga. 760, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 58 (Ga. 1927).
Opinion
The court did not err in refusing a temporary injunction, because the petitioner had an adequate remedy at law as provided in Civil Code (1910), § 3289.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Lue, Mayor v. Eady
773 S.E.2d 679 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2015)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
136 S.E. 895, 163 Ga. 760, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-v-henry-darling-inc-ga-1927.