Marler v. Vandiviere

Supreme Court of Georgia

Marler v. Vandiviere

172 S.E. 33, 178 Ga. 115, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 28

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 15, 1933

DocketNo. 9813

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 33 (Marler v. Vandiviere) 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

Marler v. Vandiviere, 172 S.E. 33, 178 Ga. 115, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 28 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

A suit was instituted against the sheriff and the solicitor-general, to enjoin confiscation of certain heer and the vehicle in which it was being carried, on the ground that the property was the subject of and employed in interstate commerce, alleging that the transportation was from the States of Ohio and Kentucky through the State of Georgia into the State of Florida, and that it was protected from seizure under the provisions of the Federal constitution and laws relating to interstate commerce. Held:

1. At interlocutory hearing the judge was authorized, under the pleadings and the evidence, to hold that the property was in this State for local distribution, and at the time of the seizure was not the subject of interstate commerce; and it was not erroneous to refuse an injunction.

2. The ease differs on its facts from Gaines v. Holmes, 154 Ga. 344 (114 S. E. 327, 27 A. L. R. 98).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur except Hill, J., absent because of illness, and

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

Per Curiam.

A suit was instituted against the sheriff and the solicitor-general, to enjoin confiscation of certain heer and the vehicle in which it was being carried, on the ground that the property was the subject of and employed in interstate commerce, alleging that the transportation was from the States of Ohio and Kentucky through the State of Georgia into the State of Florida, and that it was protected from seizure under the provisions of the Federal constitution and laws relating to interstate commerce. Held:

1. At interlocutory hearing the judge was authorized, under the pleadings and the evidence, to hold that the property was in this State for local distribution, and at the time of the seizure was not the subject of interstate commerce; and it was not erroneous to refuse an injunction.

2. The ease differs on its facts from Gaines v. Holmes, 154 Ga. 344 (114 S. E. 327, 27 A. L. R. 98).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur except Hill, J., absent because of illness, and

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E. 33, 178 Ga. 115, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marler-v-vandiviere-ga-1933.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack