Spivey v. Pope
This text of 180 S.E. 118 (Spivey v. Pope) 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.
Opinion
1. Where in a suit for injunction the evidence introduced at the interlocutory hearing consisted only of the original petition and the defendant’s answer, which considered together presented an issue of fact as to the truth of the allegations made by the plaintiff as basis for the relief sought, the presiding judge was not bound to grant an interlocutory injunction, and his judgment refusing the same will not be disturbed by this court. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 173 Ga. 633 (160 S. E. 783) ; Sapp v. Ritch, 169 Ga. 33 (2) (149 S. E. 636).
2. In a suit for injunction to prevent the exercise of a power of sale contained in a security deed, where the plaintiff does not otherwise show sufficient cause for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, the mere pendency of the action will not require the grant of such relief upon the theory that the litigation would prevent the property from bringing its market value. Wardlaw v. Woodruff, 178 Ga. 240, 247 (173 S. E. 98).
Juclgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
180 S.E. 118, 180 Ga. 609, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spivey-v-pope-ga-1935.