Reid v. Mangham

125 S.E. 50, 159 Ga. 131, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 394
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 16, 1924·No. No. 4409·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The court did not err in refusing an injunction. Under the allegations of the petition, including the deed, we can not hold as a matter of law that the defendant was obligated to supply water for the sprinkler system of the warehouse without payment of the customary and reasonable charges for supplying such water, as in the case of other customers.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. I. N. Cheney and Edwards & Edwards, for plaintiff. E. S. Griffith, for defendant.

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

Reid v. Mangham, 125 S.E. 50, 159 Ga. 131, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 394 (Ga. 1924).

125 S.E. 50 (Reid v. Mangham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smallwood v. Conner
162 S.E.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)