East v. Henry Darling Inc.

136 S.E. 895, 163 Ga. 760, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 58
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 18, 1927·No. No. 5235·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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.

All the Justices concur.

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

East v. Henry Darling Inc., 136 S.E. 895, 163 Ga. 760, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 58 (Ga. 1927).

136 S.E. 895 (East v. Henry Darling Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lue, Mayor v. Eady
773 S.E.2d 679 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2015)