Rowland v. Bartlett

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rowland v. Bartlett

128 S.E. 786, 160 Ga. 652, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 223

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 19, 1925

DocketNo. 4780

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.E. 786 (Rowland v. Bartlett) 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

Rowland v. Bartlett, 128 S.E. 786, 160 Ga. 652, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 223 (Ga. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

Under the facts alleged in plaintiff’s petition, which were accepted as true by the trial judge at the interlocutory hearing, it was not error to refuse an interlocutory injunction. If the judgment against the plaintiff, Rowland, was proceeding illegally against him for the reason that he had never been served with a copy of the petition and process in the suit against him in the city court of Atlanta, in which judgment was obtained against him, and on which execution was issued and levied on his property, which levy is now sought to be enjoined, he would have an adequate remedy at law by affidavit of illegality. Civil Code (1910), § 5311. There is nothing in the petition alleging that the defendants, or either of them, were insolvent, or that plaintiffs were for any cause remediless unless an injunction should be granted.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except (Hlberl, J., absent /or providential cause. W. A. James, J. 8. James, and J. B. Hutcheson, for plaintiffs. G. B. McGarity, for defendants.

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

Hill, J.

Under the facts alleged in plaintiff’s petition, which were accepted as true by the trial judge at the interlocutory hearing, it was not error to refuse an interlocutory injunction. If the judgment against the plaintiff, Rowland, was proceeding illegally against him for the reason that he had never been served with a copy of the petition and process in the suit against him in the city court of Atlanta, in which judgment was obtained against him, and on which execution was issued and levied on his property, which levy is now sought to be enjoined, he would have an adequate remedy at law by affidavit of illegality. Civil Code (1910), § 5311. There is nothing in the petition alleging that the defendants, or either of them, were insolvent, or that plaintiffs were for any cause remediless unless an injunction should be granted.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except (Hlberl, J., absent /or providential cause. W. A. James, J. 8. James, and J. B. Hutcheson, for plaintiffs. G. B. McGarity, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 786, 160 Ga. 652, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowland-v-bartlett-ga-1925.