Sosebee v. City of Demorest

Supreme Court of Georgia

Sosebee v. City of Demorest

185 S.E. 330, 182 Ga. 338, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 348

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1936

DocketNo. 10965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 S.E. 330 (Sosebee v. City of Demorest) 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

Sosebee v. City of Demorest, 185 S.E. 330, 182 Ga. 338, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 348 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. ’“The general rule is that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin the institution of prosecutions for criminal offenses; and this rule is applicable to prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances, which are quasi-criminal proceedings. Nor will a court of equity, upon a petition for injunction of such a nature, inquire into the validity or reasonableness of an ordinance making penal an act for the doing of which prosecutions are threatened.” White v. Tifton, 128 Ga. 582 (59 S. E. 299). “In some cases, involving special facts, injunctions may be granted against the unlawful enforcement of municipal ordinances, although they are penal in character, for the protection of property or property rights or franchises against irreparable injury; as, for instance, where, under the guise of enforcing a penal ordinance, it is manifest that prosecutions and arrests are threatened for the sole purpose of unlawfully tailing or destroying property, or preventing the exercise of a franchise granted by the State.” Mayor &c. of Shellman v. Saxon, 134 Ga. 29 (2) (67 S. E. 438, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 452).

2. The case sub judice falls within the general rule, and the trial court did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance involved.

[341]*341 Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., who dissents from the ruling in paragraph 2, cmd from the judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

1. ’“The general rule is that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin the institution of prosecutions for criminal offenses; and this rule is applicable to prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances, which are quasi-criminal proceedings. Nor will a court of equity, upon a petition for injunction of such a nature, inquire into the validity or reasonableness of an ordinance making penal an act for the doing of which prosecutions are threatened.” White v. Tifton, 128 Ga. 582 (59 S. E. 299). “In some cases, involving special facts, injunctions may be granted against the unlawful enforcement of municipal ordinances, although they are penal in character, for the protection of property or property rights or franchises against irreparable injury; as, for instance, where, under the guise of enforcing a penal ordinance, it is manifest that prosecutions and arrests are threatened for the sole purpose of unlawfully tailing or destroying property, or preventing the exercise of a franchise granted by the State.” Mayor &c. of Shellman v. Saxon, 134 Ga. 29 (2) (67 S. E. 438, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 452).

2. The case sub judice falls within the general rule, and the trial court did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance involved.

[341]*341 Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., who dissents from the ruling in paragraph 2, cmd from the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 330, 182 Ga. 338, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sosebee-v-city-of-demorest-ga-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack