Reid v. Mangham

Supreme Court of Georgia

Reid v. Mangham

125 S.E. 50, 159 Ga. 131, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 394

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 16, 1924

DocketNo. 4409

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 50 (Reid v. Mangham) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 50, 159 Ga. 131, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-mangham-ga-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack