Roberts v. Roberts

180 S.E. 491, 180 Ga. 671, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 523
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 11, 1935
DocketNo. 10728
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 180 S.E. 491 (Roberts v. Roberts) 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
Roberts v. Roberts, 180 S.E. 491, 180 Ga. 671, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 523 (Ga. 1935).

Opinion

Gilbert, Justice.

1. To the petition as originally filed the defendant demurred generally and on three special grounds. The court overruled the demurrer, and error was assigned on the overruling of the general demurrer. The petitioner amended, and the defendant demurred on three special grounds. The petitioner again amended, and the defendant again demurred to that part of the petition which sought to restrain the bank from transferring the stock described in the petition, insisting that the court had already enjoined and restrained the bank “from changing the status of the thirty-one shares of stock in” said bank. The defendant assigned error on the overruling of the last two named demurrers. Held:

(■a) The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition;

(6) That part of the petition seeking an injunction is controlled by the ruling in Hermann v. Mobley, 172 Ga. 380 (158 S. E. 38).

2. In the state of the record it is not certain that the court expressly ruled on any of the special demurrers. In order to leave open the question as to whether the special demurrers were good, the bill of exceptions is construed as containing no ruling on the special demurrers, and this question is left open without prejudice.

[672]*672No. 10728. April 11, 1935. Adhered to on rehearing, June 13, 1935. Price Edtvtwds, for plaintiff in error. Neely, Marshall & Greene and John D. Humphries Jr., contra.

3. The petition and. the answer, both being verified, served the office of both pleading' and evidence on the application for injunction. Saint Amand v. Lehman, 120 Ga. 253 (4) (47 S. E. 949).

4. It can not be held by this court that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting the interlocutory injunction to preserve the existing status until the case could be tried before a jury on its merits.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Mitchell v. DeKalb County Bank
228 S.E.2d 746 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Nunn Better Enterprises, Inc. v. Marietta Lanes, Inc.
196 S.E.2d 404 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1973)
Greene v. Interstate Credit Corp.
186 S.E.2d 869 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1972)
Leger v. Ken Edwards Enterprises, Inc.
156 S.E.2d 651 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1967)
Salter v. Ashburn
126 S.E.2d 404 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1962)
Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Georgia Public Service Commission
99 S.E.2d 225 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
Local Union No. 3871 v. Fortner
42 S.E.2d 734 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Moss v. Moss
26 S.E.2d 628 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Grizzel v. Grizzel
3 S.E.2d 649 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Bowers v. Dean
1 S.E.2d 655 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Simon v. Simon
195 S.E. 430 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Gunn
194 S.E. 365 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Byrd v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
187 S.E. 1 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 S.E. 491, 180 Ga. 671, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-roberts-ga-1935.