Tillman v. City of Valdosta

Supreme Court of Georgia

Tillman v. City of Valdosta

125 S.E. 71, 159 Ga. 105, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 385

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 15, 1924

DocketNo. 4426

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.E. 71 (Tillman v. City of Valdosta) 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

Tillman v. City of Valdosta, 125 S.E. 71, 159 Ga. 105, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 385 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The first paragraph of the order and judgment passed by the court, wherein the court granted an injunction against the defendants, restrain[110]*110ing and enjoining them “from further proceeding with the diversion of the sinking-fund belonging to the City of Valdosta by the purchase with said sinking-fund of said Valdosta street-improvement bonds,” eliminates from this case the question made by the petition and answer as to the city’s right and authority to so use the fund just referred to. Aside from this question, the other questions in the case have been decided by other decisions of this court, and most of them have been decided several times. The questions raised in this petition are not novel, and the discussions in the cases decided controlling upon the questions in this case render further discussion unnecessary. The cases to which we particularly refer are those of City of Valdosta v. Harris, 156 Ga. 490 (119 S. E. 625); Walthour v. City of Atlanta, 157 Ga. 24 (120 S. E. 613); Norman v. City of Moultrie, 157 Ga. 388 (121 S. E. 391); Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 154 Ga. 444 (114 S. E. 888). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The first paragraph of the order and judgment passed by the court, wherein the court granted an injunction against the defendants, restrain[110]*110ing and enjoining them “from further proceeding with the diversion of the sinking-fund belonging to the City of Valdosta by the purchase with said sinking-fund of said Valdosta street-improvement bonds,” eliminates from this case the question made by the petition and answer as to the city’s right and authority to so use the fund just referred to. Aside from this question, the other questions in the case have been decided by other decisions of this court, and most of them have been decided several times. The questions raised in this petition are not novel, and the discussions in the cases decided controlling upon the questions in this case render further discussion unnecessary. The cases to which we particularly refer are those of City of Valdosta v. Harris, 156 Ga. 490 (119 S. E. 625); Walthour v. City of Atlanta, 157 Ga. 24 (120 S. E. 613); Norman v. City of Moultrie, 157 Ga. 388 (121 S. E. 391); Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 154 Ga. 444 (114 S. E. 888). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 71, 159 Ga. 105, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-city-of-valdosta-ga-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack