Hardison v. Fulford

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hardison v. Fulford

184 S.E. 317, 181 Ga. 710, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 413

DecidedFebruary 19, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 184 S.E. 317 (Hardison v. Fulford) 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

Hardison v. Fulford, 184 S.E. 317, 181 Ga. 710, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 413 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Rtrssteii, Chief Justice.

A petition for injunction was presented, to restrain a suit against the petitioner on two notes in the city court of Oglethorpe. The petition did not pray for cancellation of the notes or for any other affirmative relief. The judge of the superior court granted a rule nisi calling on the defendants to appear and show cause why injunction should not be granted. Upon the day set for the hearing, counsel representing both parties were present, and the petitioner introduced and read to the court affidavits by two witnesses. When the evidence closed the petitioner’s counsel objected to counsel for the respondents’ making an argument, contending that since they had made no answer to the petition the case was in default. Over this objection the court permitted the respondents’ counsel as well as counsel for the petitioner to present their arguments. The court then refused an interlocutory injunction. Held:

1. The court did not err in permitting the counsel for the respondents to argue the question of the propriety of the grant of injunction.

2. In view of the nature of the evidence adduced, the judge did not err in refusing an injunction. Judgment affirmed.

All-the Justices concur.

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

Rtrssteii, Chief Justice.

A petition for injunction was presented, to restrain a suit against the petitioner on two notes in the city court of Oglethorpe. The petition did not pray for cancellation of the notes or for any other affirmative relief. The judge of the superior court granted a rule nisi calling on the defendants to appear and show cause why injunction should not be granted. Upon the day set for the hearing, counsel representing both parties were present, and the petitioner introduced and read to the court affidavits by two witnesses. When the evidence closed the petitioner’s counsel objected to counsel for the respondents’ making an argument, contending that since they had made no answer to the petition the case was in default. Over this objection the court permitted the respondents’ counsel as well as counsel for the petitioner to present their arguments. The court then refused an interlocutory injunction. Held:

1. The court did not err in permitting the counsel for the respondents to argue the question of the propriety of the grant of injunction.

2. In view of the nature of the evidence adduced, the judge did not err in refusing an injunction. Judgment affirmed.

All-the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 S.E. 317, 181 Ga. 710, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardison-v-fulford-ga-1936.