Hines v. Moore

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hines v. Moore

138 S.E. 671, 164 Ga. 310, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 179

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hines v. Moore. Read the opinion of the Court — 168 Ga. 451 →

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 17, 1927·No. No. 5537·Published

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

This case coming before the entire bench of six Justices, the question being whether or not the court erred in granting a temporary injunction, and the Justices being equally divided, Beck, P. J., and Gilbert and Hines, JJ., being of the opinion that the court did not err, and Russell, C. J., and Atkinson and Hill, JJ., being of the opinion that the court did err, the judgment is affirmed by operation of law.

Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. p. 1122, n. 35.

Courts, 15 C. J. p. 966, n. 78.

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

Pee Cubiam.

This case coming before the entire bench of six Justices, the question being whether or not the court erred in granting a temporary injunction, and the Justices being equally divided, Beck, P. J., and Gilbert and Hines, JJ., being of the opinion that the court did not err, and Russell, C. J., and Atkinson and Hill, JJ., being of the opinion that the court did err, the judgment is affirmed by operation of law.

Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. p. 1122, n. 35.

Courts, 15 C. J. p. 966, n. 78.

Hines v. Moore, 138 S.E. 671, 164 Ga. 310, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 179 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

138 S.E. 671 (Hines v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.