Eugene S. Ballin & Co. v. M. Ferst & Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Eugene S. Ballin & Co. v. M. Ferst & Co.

53 Ga. 551

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 53 Ga. 551 (Eugene S. Ballin & Co. v. M. Ferst & 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

Eugene S. Ballin & Co. v. M. Ferst & Co., 53 Ga. 551 (Ga. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

The refusal of a motion to dissolve an injunction, granted on order to show cause, is not subject to review by this court, under sections 3212 et seq. of the Code, even though said motion may have been made by defendants who have had themselves made parties since said writ was ordered to issue. This principle applies as well to a motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver. (R.)

Injunction. Receiver. Before the Supreme Court. January Term, 1875.

The above head-note explains itself.

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

The refusal of a motion to dissolve an injunction, granted on order to show cause, is not subject to review by this court, under sections 3212 et seq. of the Code, even though said motion may have been made by defendants who have had themselves made parties since said writ was ordered to issue. This principle applies as well to a motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver. (R.)

Injunction. Receiver. Before the Supreme Court. January Term, 1875.

The above head-note explains itself.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Ga. 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-s-ballin-co-v-m-ferst-co-ga-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack