Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Hapeville-Block Inc. v. Walker

Hapeville-Block Inc. v. Walker

50 S.E.2d 9, 204 Ga. 462, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 450
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 13, 1948
Docket16361.
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 50 S.E.2d 9 (Hapeville-Block Inc. v. Walker) 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
Hapeville-Block Inc. v. Walker, 50 S.E.2d 9, 204 Ga. 462, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 450 (Ga. 1948).

Opinion

Head, Justice.

The plaintiff in this case is clearly not seeking an injunction to restrain present acts. The actual relief sought is the performance of acts by the defendants, which it is alleged are necessary to preserve the plaintiff’s property from injury caused by excavations made by Shackleford prior to the time the defendants, Walker and Henderson, acquired title to their property.

The Code, § 55-110, provides: “An injunction may only restrain; it may not compel a party to perform an act. It may restrain until performance.” In construing this section of the Code, it has been held by this court that the trial court may grant an order, “the essential nature of which is to restrain, although in yielding obedience to the restraint the defendant may incidentally be compelled to perform some act.” Goodrich v. Ga. R. & Banking Co., 115 Ga. 340 (41 S. E. 659); Westbrook v. Comer, 197 Ga. 434 (6) (29 S. E. 2d, 574). Suclj. is not the relief sought here. The plaintiff seeks an order of the court to require the defendants to do some act to preserve the plaintiff’s property. Such an order, if granted, would be a mandatory injunction. Mandatory injunctions are prohibited by the laws of this *464 State. Ga. Power Co. v. Rome, 172 Ga. 15 (8) (157 S. E. 283); Braswell v. Palmer, 191 Ga. 263 (4) (11 S. E. 2d, 889).

If the petition could be construed as seeking an injunction against the excavation complained of, it comes too late, since an “injunction will not be granted to restrain acts already completed.” Shurley v. Black, 156 Ga. 684 (119 S. E. 618). See also Ga. Pacific Ry. v. Douglasville, 75 Ga. 828; Simmons v. Lindsay, 144 Ga. 848 (88 S. E. 199); Reid v. McRae, 190 Ga. 332 (9 S. E. 2d, 176).

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to-the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bell, J.,. absent on account of illness.

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

Related

Faulkner v. Georgia Power Co.
247 S.E.2d 80 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)
Brown v. Wright
203 S.E.2d 487 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Ellis v. Georgia Kraft Co.
133 S.E.2d 350 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Moorhead v. Luther
132 S.E.2d 669 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Avis, Inc. v. Graham
122 S.E.2d 245 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Reeves v. Duval
106 S.E.2d 797 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Blackwell v. Farrar
73 S.E.2d 203 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Sandt v. Mason
67 S.E.2d 767 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Ozbolt v. Miller
57 S.E.2d 601 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Whipkey v. Turner
57 S.E.2d 481 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Bush v. City of Gainesville
56 S.E.2d 478 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 S.E.2d 9, 204 Ga. 462, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hapeville-block-inc-v-walker-ga-1948.