Maynard v. Griffin
This text of 93 S.E. 401 (Maynard v. Griffin) 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.
Opinion
Where the record does not affirmatively show that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing an interlocutory injunction, this court will not reverse the judgment. This record does not affirmatively show such abuse of discretion. The facts of the case differ from the facts in the case of Tolbert v. Teal, 146 Ga. 644 (92 S. E. 46). In the latter ease it was proved that a large area of the county was omitted from the districts laid off, as if the omitted territory were not a part of the county. In the present case the evidence was such as to permit a contrary finding.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
93 S.E. 401, 147 Ga. 293, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maynard-v-griffin-ga-1917.