Gordon v. Fritts

76 S.E. 40, 138 Ga. 770, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 704
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 15, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 40 (Gordon v. Fritts) 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
Gordon v. Fritts, 76 S.E. 40, 138 Ga. 770, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 704 (Ga. 1912).

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. Under the pleadings and evidence, there was no abuse of discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction, subject to be dissolved on the giving of a bond by the defendant.

2. The demurrer was not heard or passed on as such. While on the interlocutory hearing it was considered with the other pleadings in determining whether an injunction should be granted, such grant was not a conclusive adjudication upon the demurrer.

(a) Inasmuch as there was no error in granting the interlocutory injunction based on the suit of a former wife, against her divorced hus[771]*771band, to recover judgment on account of necessary expenditures made by her in supporting their minor children, and to enforce payment from an interest which he had in an unsettled estate, it would not necessarily make such grant erroneous if there was a misjoinder of parties 01-causes of action because she added to her petition a proceeding by helas next friend of the children, to require the father of such children to' furnish them with a support during their minority.

October 15, 1912. Injunction. Before Judge Fite. Catoosa superior court. April 12, 1912. Maddox, McOamy & Shumate and Foust & Payne, for plaintiffs in error. PL. P. Lumplcin, Baxter Smith, and Earl Jaclcson, contra.

3. When an application for an interlocutory injunction came on to be heard at chambers in a county other than that in which the suit was brought, an oral motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was multifarious and included a misjoinder of parties and causes of action was not proper to be made and determined, and was correctly denied. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Carter Co. v. O'Quinn
85 S.E. 90 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Bishop v. Brown
76 S.E. 89 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 S.E. 40, 138 Ga. 770, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-fritts-ga-1912.