Manry v. Bank of Forsyth

Supreme Court of Georgia

Manry v. Bank of Forsyth

175 S.E. 644, 179 Ga. 246, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 262

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 8, 1934·No. No. 9969·Published

Opinion

Russell, O. J.

1. In view of the fact that the petition and the amendment to the petition allege that the petitioner has no right or title to the land in question, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition as setting forth no cause of action, or in dismissing the same.

2. As the court did not err in dismissing the petition, a ruling upon the merits of the court’s judgment as to the dissolution of the restraining [247]*247order and refusal of an interlocutory injunction is not necessary, and would be really perfunctory.

No. 9969. August 8, 1934.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hutcheson, J., disqualified. B. II. Manry,' for plaintiff. Willingham & Willingham, for defendant.

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

Russell, O. J.

1. In view of the fact that the petition and the amendment to the petition allege that the petitioner has no right or title to the land in question, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition as setting forth no cause of action, or in dismissing the same.

2. As the court did not err in dismissing the petition, a ruling upon the merits of the court’s judgment as to the dissolution of the restraining [247]*247order and refusal of an interlocutory injunction is not necessary, and would be really perfunctory.

No. 9969. August 8, 1934.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hutcheson, J., disqualified. B. II. Manry,' for plaintiff. Willingham & Willingham, for defendant.

Manry v. Bank of Forsyth, 175 S.E. 644, 179 Ga. 246, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 262 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

175 S.E. 644 (Manry v. Bank of Forsyth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.