Gheesling v. Martin

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gheesling v. Martin

168 S.E. 767, 176 Ga. 738, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 273

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 18, 1933

DocketNo. 9199

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 767 (Gheesling v. Martin) 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

Gheesling v. Martin, 168 S.E. 767, 176 Ga. 738, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 273 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Bussell, C. J.

1. “The granting and continuing of injunctions must always rest in the sound discretion of the judge, according to the circumstances of each case.” Civil Code (1910), § 5497.

2. “In hearings upon applications for interlocutory injunctions, where the evidence upon material issues of fact is in conflict, the grant or refusal [739]*739of applications is within the discretion of the chancellor, and the exercise of his discretion in granting' or refusing the relief prayed for will not be controlled unless manifestly abused.” Sapp v. Ritch, 169 Ga. 33 (3) (149 S. E. 636).

No. 9199. March 18, 1933. B. J. Stevens, for plaintiff. J. B. & T. R. Burnside, for defendants.

3. Upon the evidence adduced, it can not be held that there was an abuse of discretion in the present case.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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