Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Rosser v. Lam Amusement Co.

Rosser v. Lam Amusement Co.

196 S.E. 404, 185 Ga. 725, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 500
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 10, 1938
DocketNo. 12155
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 196 S.E. 404 (Rosser v. Lam Amusement 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
Rosser v. Lam Amusement Co., 196 S.E. 404, 185 Ga. 725, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 500 (Ga. 1938).

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

The allegations of the petition as set forth in the accompanying statement of facts, show a cause of action for injunctive relief. Rose Theater v. Lilly, 185 Ga. 53 (193 S. E. 866); Atkinson v. Lam Amusement Co., 185 Ga. 379 (195 S. E. 156). The judge erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition and dismissing the action. See Thompson v. Atlanta, 178 Ga. 281 (2) (172 S. E. 915).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Maddox, Matthews & Owens, for plaintiff. Lanham & Parker and Wright & Covington, for defendant.

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

Related

Forehand v. Moody
36 S.E.2d 321 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Waller v. Lanier
30 S.E.2d 925 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
196 S.E. 404, 185 Ga. 725, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosser-v-lam-amusement-co-ga-1938.