Eugene S. Ballin & Co. v. M. Ferst & Co.
53 Ga. 551
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
Eugene S. Ballin & Co. v. M. Ferst & Co., 53 Ga. 551 (Ga. 1875).
53 Ga. 551 (Eugene S. Ballin & Co. v. M. Ferst & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Moore v. Selman
136 S.E.2d 329 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Grizzel v. Grizzel
3 S.E.2d 649 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Jones v. Graham
1 S.E.2d 635 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
James v. Wilkerson
138 S.E. 71 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Smith v. Willis
32 S.E. 92 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Hollinshead v. Town of Lincolnton
84 Ga. 590 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890)