Flowers v. Wall's Odorless Cleaners Inc.

172 S.E. 561, 178 Ga. 201, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 9
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 11, 1934·No. No. 9762·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pee Ctjbiam.

1. Under the pleadings and the evidence the judge did not abuse his discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction until the case can be finally heard on its merits. Whitley Grocery Co. v. McCaw Mfg. Co., 105 Ga. 839 (32 S. E. 113).

2. Where, on the hearing of an application for injunction, the court fails “to pass upon” a special plea in abatement, but defers that question until the final hearing, this court will not rule on an assignment of error based upon the failure to render such a judgment. The question will be left open, without prejudice, until further order thereon in the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices conmr, except Hitt, J., absent because of illness. Thomas J. Lewis and W. 0. Blale, for plaintiff in error. Hendrix & Buchanan and Clifford Hendrix, contra.

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

Flowers v. Wall's Odorless Cleaners Inc., 172 S.E. 561, 178 Ga. 201, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 9 (Ga. 1934).

172 S.E. 561 (Flowers v. Wall's Odorless Cleaners Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Local Union No. 3871 v. Fortner
42 S.E.2d 734 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)