Rosser v. Lam Amusement Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rosser v. Lam Amusement Co.

196 S.E. 404, 185 Ga. 725, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 500

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 10, 1938·No. No. 12155·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

196 S.E. 404 (Rosser v. Lam Amusement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related