Feeney Hay Co. v. Trenton Milling Co.

189 Ga. 109
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 11, 1939
DocketNo. 13004
StatusPublished

This text of 189 Ga. 109 (Feeney Hay Co. v. Trenton Milling 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
Feeney Hay Co. v. Trenton Milling Co., 189 Ga. 109 (Ga. 1939).

Opinion

Grice, Justice.

1. If a petition which undertakes to set out a cause of action for either equitable or legal relief, or both, is sufficient for either relief, it will not be dismissed on a general demurrer, but will proceed for the relief appropriate to such of the allegations and prayers as are sufficient.

2. The petition as amended stated facts sufficient to justify a court in its discretion to grant the extraordinary equitable relief prayed for, to wit, an injunction and receiver. Hermann v. Mobley, 172 Ga. 380 (158 S. E. 38) ; Goodroe v. C. L. C. Thomas Warehouse, 185 Ga. 399 (3), 400 (195 S. E. 199). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Hermann v. Mobley
158 S.E. 38 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Goodroe v. C. L. C. Thomas Warehouse
195 S.E. 199 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 Ga. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feeney-hay-co-v-trenton-milling-co-ga-1939.