Martin v. Harris

Supreme Court of Georgia

Martin v. Harris

116 S.E.2d 558, 216 Ga. 350, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 467

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 6, 1960

Docket21010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 S.E.2d 558 (Martin v. Harris) 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

Martin v. Harris, 116 S.E.2d 558, 216 Ga. 350, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 467 (Ga. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The record and the bill of exceptions showing clearly that the lower court issued a restraining order, which was personally served and thereafter violated by the defendant therein, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in adjudging the defendant in contempt of court after a hearing, the only defense being that the court was without jurisdiction to grant the restraining order. Code § 55-201; Russell v. Mohr-Weil Lumber Co., 102 Ga. 563 (29 S. E. 271); Corley v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 201 Ga. 333 (39 S. E. 2d 861). Whether or not the petition has merit is immaterial, since the sole issue is the violation of the restraining order, and the court had jurisdiction of both the parties and the subject matter in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The record and the bill of exceptions showing clearly that the lower court issued a restraining order, which was personally served and thereafter violated by the defendant therein, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in adjudging the defendant in contempt of court after a hearing, the only defense being that the court was without jurisdiction to grant the restraining order. Code § 55-201; Russell v. Mohr-Weil Lumber Co., 102 Ga. 563 (29 S. E. 271); Corley v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 201 Ga. 333 (39 S. E. 2d 861). Whether or not the petition has merit is immaterial, since the sole issue is the violation of the restraining order, and the court had jurisdiction of both the parties and the subject matter in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E.2d 558, 216 Ga. 350, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-harris-ga-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack