Howell v. Lee

36 Ga. 76
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 36 Ga. 76 (Howell v. Lee) 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
Howell v. Lee, 36 Ga. 76 (Ga. 1867).

Opinion

Harris, J.

Notwithstanding the repeated decisions, from the very establishment of the Court itself, it seems very difficult to eradicate a prevalent but mistaken idea with members of the bar, that upon the coming in of the answer of a defendant, and swearing off (as it is called in common parlance,) the equity of complainant’s bill, the injunction in the cause will, as a matter of course, be dissolved. The granting and the dissolution of injunctions must ever remain matters for the careful and sound discretion of the Judges of the Superior Courts. Injunctions are the most efficient instruments known to jurisprudence with which to enforce right and to protect against present or prospective wrong.

This Court is always reluctant to interfere, by ordering a dissolution, when the Judge below has refused such motion. [85]*85It will interfere whenever it is manifest to it that the discretion was abused or unsoundly exercised. We do not think the refusal here calls for a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Manry v. Waxelbaum Co.
33 S.E. 701 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
Fuson v. Connecticut General Life Ins.
6 N.W. 7 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Ga. 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-lee-ga-1867.