Tift v. Farmers Bank of Tifton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Tift v. Farmers Bank of Tifton

77 S.E.2d 505, 210 Ga. 35, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 463

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 14, 1953

Docket18275

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 77 S.E.2d 505 (Tift v. Farmers Bank of Tifton) 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

Tift v. Farmers Bank of Tifton, 77 S.E.2d 505, 210 Ga. 35, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 463 (Ga. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

This litigation involves the right to use an alley without interference, and the exception is to a judgment denying an interlocutory injunction. The grant or denial of such an injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, according to the circumstances of each case (Code § 55-108); and, where the evidence is conflicting, his decision will not be controlled by this court unless it is apparent that he has abused the discretion which the law gives him. Deriso v. Castleberry, 202 Ga. 174 (42 S. E. 2d 356). In the case at bar the evidence is in conflict and no abuse of discretion appears. Hence the record fails to show error. See Fletcher v. Clements, 147 Ga. 754 (95 S. E. 285); Vickers v. City of Gainesville, 177 Ga. 793 (171 S. E. 299); Jones v. Lanier Development Co., 188 Ga. 141, 145 (2 S. E. 2d 923).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, PJ., not participating.

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

Candler, Justice.

This litigation involves the right to use an alley without interference, and the exception is to a judgment denying an interlocutory injunction. The grant or denial of such an injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, according to the circumstances of each case (Code § 55-108); and, where the evidence is conflicting, his decision will not be controlled by this court unless it is apparent that he has abused the discretion which the law gives him. Deriso v. Castleberry, 202 Ga. 174 (42 S. E. 2d 356). In the case at bar the evidence is in conflict and no abuse of discretion appears. Hence the record fails to show error. See Fletcher v. Clements, 147 Ga. 754 (95 S. E. 285); Vickers v. City of Gainesville, 177 Ga. 793 (171 S. E. 299); Jones v. Lanier Development Co., 188 Ga. 141, 145 (2 S. E. 2d 923).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, PJ., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E.2d 505, 210 Ga. 35, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tift-v-farmers-bank-of-tifton-ga-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack