Trowbridge Hardware Co. v. Chapman

141 S.E. 203, 165 Ga. 448, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 6
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 10, 1928·No. No. 6226·Published

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The exception in this case is to a judgment refusing an interlocutory injunction against further proceeding by a constable to enforce a justice-court fi. fa. by levy and sale of personal property; it being insisted that the fi. fa. and the judgment on which it is based are void. The petitioner (defendant in fi. fa.) had previously interposed an affidavit of illegality on the same ground, which had been overruled, which ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Anderson v. Trowbridge Hardware Co., 36 Ga. App. 776 (138 S. E. 250). Held, that the court did not err in refusing'an injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Trowbridge Hardware Co. v. Chapman, 141 S.E. 203, 165 Ga. 448, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 6 (Ga. 1928).

141 S.E. 203 (Trowbridge Hardware Co. v. Chapman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anderson v. Trowbridge Hardware Co.
138 S.E. 250 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)