McKenzie v. Emanuel Farm Co.

129 S.E. 89, 160 Ga. 848, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 277
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 14, 1925
DocketNo. 4958
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 S.E. 89 (McKenzie v. Emanuel Farm Co.) 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
McKenzie v. Emanuel Farm Co., 129 S.E. 89, 160 Ga. 848, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 277 (Ga. 1925).

Opinion

Hikes, J.

1. Conceding that the allegations of the petition make a case entitling the plaintiffs to the equitable relief prayed, these allegations are denied by the sworn answer of the defendants; and the evidence introduced upon the issue thus raised being in conflict, this court will not disturb the judgment of the trial judge denying a temporary injunction, it not being made to appear that there was an abuse of discretion. Bennett v. Dickey, 159 Ga. 267 (125 S. E. 455).

2. The issues of law and fact can all be threshed out upon the final hearing. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Ballard v. Waites
21 S.E.2d 848 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 S.E. 89, 160 Ga. 848, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-emanuel-farm-co-ga-1925.