Holland Pecan Co. v. Brown
170 S.E. 357, 177 Ga. 525, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 346
Opinion
1. In applications for interlocutory injunction, the exercise of the discretion of the chancellor will not be disturbed unless there was a manifest abuse of discretion; and this does not appear in the record in the present case.
2. The court did not err in refusing to enjoin the exercise of the power of sale contained in the security deed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Holland Pecan Co. v. Brown, 170 S.E. 357, 177 Ga. 525, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 346 (Ga. 1933).
170 S.E. 357 (Holland Pecan Co. v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Georgia Loan & Trust Co. v. Dyer
213 S.E.2d 864 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Champion v. Neason
136 S.E.2d 718 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Dozier v. Mangham
113 S.E.2d 212 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1960)
Associated Mutuals Inc. v. Coe
26 S.E.2d 450 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Atkinson v. England
22 S.E.2d 798 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Moon v. Clark
14 S.E.2d 481 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Thompson v. Mutual Investment Corp.
4 S.E.2d 44 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Jones v. Lanier Development Co.
2 S.E.2d 923 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)