Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co. v. Griffin

104 S.E. 634, 150 Ga. 607, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 247
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 2, 1920
DocketNos. 1802, 1803
StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.E. 634 (Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co. 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.

Bluebook
Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co. v. Griffin, 104 S.E. 634, 150 Ga. 607, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 247 (Ga. 1920).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The rulings on the admissibility of evidence show no cause for reversal. On conflicting' evidence the judge did not err in his judgment granting in part, and refusing in part, the temporary injunction as prayed.

Judgment affirmed on both the main and the cross-bill of exceptions.

All the Justices concur. Mayson & Johnson, for plaintiffs in error in main bill of exceptions,

cited, on width of entrance: Turner v. Thompson, 58 Ga. 268 (24 Am. R. 497), s. c. 69 Ga. 219; Jemo v. Tourist Hotel Co., 55 Wash. 595; Lindbloom v. Berkman, 43 Wash. 356 (86 Pac. 567); Kitchen Hotel Co. v. Philbin, 2 Neb. Unoff. 340 (96 N. W. 487); Walker v. Clifford, 128 Ala. 67 (29 So. 588); Ward v. Robertson, 77 Iowa, 159 (41 N. W. 603); Cummings v. Perry, 177 Mass. 407 (58 N. E. 1083); Agate v. Lowenbein, 4 Daly (N. Y.), 62; Vidvard v. Cushman, 23 Hun (N. Y.), 434; Oakford v. Nixon, 177 Pa. 76 (35 Atl. 588). On signs at entrance: Salinger v. North American Woolen Mills, 70 W. Va. 151 (73 S. E. 312); Booth v. Gaither, 58 Ill. App. 263; McNair v. Ames, 68 Atl. 950 ; Lawrence v. Springer, 49 N. J. Eq. 289 (24 Atl. 933); Crosdale v. Lanigan, 129 N. Y. 604 (29 N. E. 824, 26 Am. St. R. 551); Johnson v. Stillman, 29 Minn. 95 (43 N. W. 192); Cronkhite v. Cronkhite, 94 N. Y. 323; Baker v. L. & N. R. Co., 65 Miss. 172; St. Louis Stock Yards v. Wiggins, 112 Ill. 384; Tanner v. Valentine, 75 Ill. 625; Collins v. Macey, 25 Conn. 239; Wilson v. St. Paul &c. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 56 (42 N. W. 600, 4 L. R. A. 378); Houston v. Laffee, 46 N. H. 505; Dunneen v. Rich, 22 Wis. 524; Simpson v. Wright, 21 Ill. App. 67; Brown v. [609]*609Woodworth, 5 Barb. 550; Kivett v. McKeithen, 90 N C. 106; Hitchens v. Shaller, 32 Mich. 496; Owen v. Field, 12 Allen, 457; Jones, Land. & Ten. § 40. On glass partitions, and light on stairway: Smyth v. Nelson, 135 Ga. 96; Holden v. Tidwell, 37 Okla. 553 (133 Pac. 54); 16 R. C. L. 709, 716, and cit.

James W. Austin and Charles T. & John L. Hopkins, contra,

cited: DeFoor v. Stephens, 133 Ga. 617; Darnell v. Columbus &c. Co., 129 Ga. 62; Asa G. Candler Inc. v. Ga. Theater Co., 148 Ga. 188, and cit.; 24 Cyc. 1045, 1046; Lidgerding v. Zignego, 77 Minn. 421 (80 N. W. 360); Edmison v. Lowry, 17 L. R. A. 275; Case v. Minot, 22 L. R. A. 536; Tremont Theater Co. v. Bruno, 225 Mass. 461 (114 N. E. 672); Flanagan v. Welch, 220 Mass. 186 (107 N. E. 979); Rojas v. Seeger, 122 La. 218 (47 So. 532); Miller v. Fitzgerald Co., 62 Neb. 270 (86 N. W. 1078) ; Gans v. Hughes, 14 N. Y. Supp. 930; O’Neill v. Breese, 23 N. Y. Supp. 526; Vinissky v. Lazovsky, 155 Ill. App. 596; Riddle v. Littlefield, 53 N. H. 503; 9 R. C. L. 754, § 21, 763, § 27, and cit.; Note to German Saving &c. Co. v. Gordon, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 331; Kelly v. Dunning, 43 N. J. Eq. 62; Toothe v. Bryce, 50 N. J. Eq. 589; Curtiss v. Ayrault, 47 N. Y. 73; Morrison v. King, 62 Ill. 30; Powers v. Heffernan, 233 Ill. 597 (84 N. E. 661, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 523); National Bank v. Cunningham, 46 O. St. 575; Civil Code, § 4628.

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

Related

Crosdale v. . Lanigan
29 N.E. 824 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Cronkhite v. . Cronkhite
94 N.Y. 323 (New York Court of Appeals, 1884)
Curtiss v. . Ayrault
47 N.Y. 73 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Holden v. Tidwell
1913 OK 402 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
MacNair v. Ames
68 A. 950 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1908)
Lindbloom v. Berkman
86 P. 567 (Washington Supreme Court, 1906)
Jemo v. Tourist Hotel Co.
104 P. 820 (Washington Supreme Court, 1909)
Brown v. Woodworth
5 Barb. 550 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
O'Neill v. Breese
23 N.Y.S. 526 (Superior Court of New York, 1893)
Turner v. Thompson
58 Ga. 268 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1877)
Thompson v. Turner
69 Ga. 219 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1883)
Darnell v. Columbus Show-Case Co.
58 S.E. 631 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
DeFoor v. Stephens & Lastinger
66 S.E. 786 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Smyth v. Nelson
68 S.E. 1032 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Asa G. Candler Inc. v. Georgia Theater Co.
96 S.E. 226 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)
Gans v. Hughes
14 N.Y.S. 930 (New York City Court, 1891)
Oakford v. Nixon
35 A. 588 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)
Cummings v. Perry
58 N.E. 1083 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Flanagan v. Welch
107 N.E. 979 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Tremont Theatre Amusement Co. v. Bruno
114 N.E. 672 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 S.E. 634, 150 Ga. 607, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-hutchins-atlanta-co-v-griffin-ga-1920.