Hoke v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hoke v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.

89 Ga. 215

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 28, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 Ga. 215 (Hoke v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.) 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

Hoke v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 89 Ga. 215 (Ga. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

[215]*215 Judgment affirmed.

Hoice Smith and Erwin & Cobb, for plaintiff in error,

cited, on constitutionality of charter, 1 Bl. Com. 44, 472-3; 15 S. W. Rep. 364; 84 Ga. 725, 804-812 ; 87 Ga. 444, 487, 533 ; 74 Ga. 509, 658; 20 Atl. Rep. 194 ; 58 Md. 603 ; 71 Ga. 484; 76 Ga. 766, 826; 83 Ga. 61, 270, 465 ; 73 Ga. 40 ; 70 Ga. 585 ; 52 Ga. 410 ; 44 Ga. 77, 465 ; 38 Ga. 355 ; 16 Ga. 105 ; 14 Ga. 83; 13 Ga. 83 ; Code, §§5027, 5077. On eminent domain, Code, §§2222, 2223, 5095 ; 9 Ga. 517 ; 6 How. 507; 3 Ga. 338; 42 Ga. 501; Beach, Rwys. §§797, 798; 35 Mich. 265; 62 Id. 564; 83 N. C. 489 ; 16 Phil. Rep. 637; 36 Conn. 197; 42 Barb. 120; 11 Leigh, 76; 6 Minn. 97 ; 3 Porter (Ind.), 464 ; 64 Pa. St. 137 ; 33 Id. 175 ; 122 Id. 511; 63 N. Y. 331; 138 Mass. 277; 111 Id. 125; 23 Pick. 360; 44 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 10; 39 Id. 6; 67 Cal. 429; 76 Id. 404; 4 Cush. 63; Cooley, Con. L. 336; 97 Ill. 506; 112 Id. 589; 71 Id. 333; 17 W. Va. 812 ; 1 Rice (S. C.), 383; 21 N. Y. 595; 53 Id. 60; 72 Id. 330 ; 2 Harr. (Del.) 514; 1 Redf. Rwys. 241, 267 ; Pierce, Rwys. 152 ; 28 N. E. Rep. 925 ; 11 N. H. 19 ; 6 How. 507.

•J. B. Cumming, George Hillyer and Bryan Gumming contra,

cited, on the constitutional question, Code, §§5027, 5025, 1678 et seq., 774 et seq.; Cobb’s Dig. 542 ; Acts [218]*2181865-6, p. 27-28 ; Acts 1876, pp. 33, 118 ; 87 Ga. 487, 532, 610; 76 Ga. 768, 826; 71 Ga. 484 ; 74 Ga. 509; 84 Ga. 804; 44 Am. &. Eng. R. R. Cas. 168; 11 O. St. 516 ; 60 N. Y. 463 ; 69 Ga. 159 ; Morawetz, P. C. §§15, 16, 768; 14 Ga. 80. On condemnation, 1 Wood, Rwy. L. 227 ; Rorer, Rwys. 502 ; 4 Cush 63; 4 Sharswood & Budd, L. C. 450; 39 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 6, 10, 17, 117; 25 Id. 158 ; 10 Id. 444; 47 Id. 97 ; 28 Id. 266 ; 2 Id. 440; 10 Id. 31; 14 Id. 83, 407; 3 Id. 507; 118 Mass. 391, 561; 114 Id. 368 ; 153 Id. 561; 111 Id. 125 ; 124 Id. 368; 53 N. Y. 574 ; 68 Id. 167 ; 77 Id. 248 ; 24 N. J. Eq. 217; 8 So. Rep. 281; Am. Dig. 1891, p. 1451; 53 Ga. 120; 9 Ga. 517; Code, §§2222, 2223. On injunction, 63 Ga. 226; 66 Ga. 45, 256; 67 Ga. 36 ; 69 Ga. 472; 70 Ga. 309, 542, 549 ; 72 Ga. 196 ; 73 Ga. 103 ; 77 Ga. 492.

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

[215]*215 Judgment affirmed.

Hoice Smith and Erwin & Cobb, for plaintiff in error,

cited, on constitutionality of charter, 1 Bl. Com. 44, 472-3; 15 S. W. Rep. 364; 84 Ga. 725, 804-812 ; 87 Ga. 444, 487, 533 ; 74 Ga. 509, 658; 20 Atl. Rep. 194 ; 58 Md. 603 ; 71 Ga. 484; 76 Ga. 766, 826; 83 Ga. 61, 270, 465 ; 73 Ga. 40 ; 70 Ga. 585 ; 52 Ga. 410 ; 44 Ga. 77, 465 ; 38 Ga. 355 ; 16 Ga. 105 ; 14 Ga. 83; 13 Ga. 83 ; Code, §§5027, 5077. On eminent domain, Code, §§2222, 2223, 5095 ; 9 Ga. 517 ; 6 How. 507; 3 Ga. 338; 42 Ga. 501; Beach, Rwys. §§797, 798; 35 Mich. 265; 62 Id. 564; 83 N. C. 489 ; 16 Phil. Rep. 637; 36 Conn. 197; 42 Barb. 120; 11 Leigh, 76; 6 Minn. 97 ; 3 Porter (Ind.), 464 ; 64 Pa. St. 137 ; 33 Id. 175 ; 122 Id. 511; 63 N. Y. 331; 138 Mass. 277; 111 Id. 125; 23 Pick. 360; 44 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 10; 39 Id. 6; 67 Cal. 429; 76 Id. 404; 4 Cush. 63; Cooley, Con. L. 336; 97 Ill. 506; 112 Id. 589; 71 Id. 333; 17 W. Va. 812 ; 1 Rice (S. C.), 383; 21 N. Y. 595; 53 Id. 60; 72 Id. 330 ; 2 Harr. (Del.) 514; 1 Redf. Rwys. 241, 267 ; Pierce, Rwys. 152 ; 28 N. E. Rep. 925 ; 11 N. H. 19 ; 6 How. 507.

•J. B. Cumming, George Hillyer and Bryan Gumming contra,

cited, on the constitutional question, Code, §§5027, 5025, 1678 et seq., 774 et seq.; Cobb’s Dig. 542 ; Acts [218]*2181865-6, p. 27-28 ; Acts 1876, pp. 33, 118 ; 87 Ga. 487, 532, 610; 76 Ga. 768, 826; 71 Ga. 484 ; 74 Ga. 509; 84 Ga. 804; 44 Am. &. Eng. R. R. Cas. 168; 11 O. St. 516 ; 60 N. Y. 463 ; 69 Ga. 159 ; Morawetz, P. C. §§15, 16, 768; 14 Ga. 80. On condemnation, 1 Wood, Rwy. L. 227 ; Rorer, Rwys. 502 ; 4 Cush 63; 4 Sharswood & Budd, L. C. 450; 39 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 6, 10, 17, 117; 25 Id. 158 ; 10 Id. 444; 47 Id. 97 ; 28 Id. 266 ; 2 Id. 440; 10 Id. 31; 14 Id. 83, 407; 3 Id. 507; 118 Mass. 391, 561; 114 Id. 368 ; 153 Id. 561; 111 Id. 125 ; 124 Id. 368; 53 N. Y. 574 ; 68 Id. 167 ; 77 Id. 248 ; 24 N. J. Eq. 217; 8 So. Rep. 281; Am. Dig. 1891, p. 1451; 53 Ga. 120; 9 Ga. 517; Code, §§2222, 2223. On injunction, 63 Ga. 226; 66 Ga. 45, 256; 67 Ga. 36 ; 69 Ga. 472; 70 Ga. 309, 542, 549 ; 72 Ga. 196 ; 73 Ga. 103 ; 77 Ga. 492.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 Ga. 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoke-v-georgia-railroad-banking-co-ga-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack