Thurmond v. Hale

Supreme Court of Georgia

Thurmond v. Hale

174 S.E. 241, 178 Ga. 745, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 162

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1934

DocketNo. 9940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 S.E. 241 (Thurmond v. Hale) 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

Thurmond v. Hale, 174 S.E. 241, 178 Ga. 745, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 162 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Hutcheson, J.

An order passed by the judge as follows: “This ease was heard at the time and place fixed by order of the eourt, and decision reserved till this date. Any right the plaintiff has in the property will be protected under the doctrine of lis pendens. After considering the evidence, the restraining order heretofore granted is vacated,” is not an order refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction, and affords no basis for a writ of error. Shirley v. Standard Oil Co., 169 Ga. 300 (150 S. E. [746]*746215); Forrester v. Denny, 169 Ga, 435 (150 S. E. 555); Touchton v. Henderson, 158 Ga. 819 (124 S. E. 529).

No. 9940. April 11, 1934. Joe Quillian, for plaintiff. Robert L. Russell, for defendant.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hutcheson, J.

An order passed by the judge as follows: “This ease was heard at the time and place fixed by order of the eourt, and decision reserved till this date. Any right the plaintiff has in the property will be protected under the doctrine of lis pendens. After considering the evidence, the restraining order heretofore granted is vacated,” is not an order refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction, and affords no basis for a writ of error. Shirley v. Standard Oil Co., 169 Ga. 300 (150 S. E. [746]*746215); Forrester v. Denny, 169 Ga, 435 (150 S. E. 555); Touchton v. Henderson, 158 Ga. 819 (124 S. E. 529).

No. 9940. April 11, 1934. Joe Quillian, for plaintiff. Robert L. Russell, for defendant.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.E. 241, 178 Ga. 745, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurmond-v-hale-ga-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack