Vance v. Vogel

Supreme Court of Georgia

Vance v. Vogel

167 S.E. 112, 176 Ga. 132, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 404

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 15, 1932

DocketNo. 8972

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 112 (Vance v. Vogel) 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

Vance v. Vogel, 167 S.E. 112, 176 Ga. 132, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 404 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, O. J.

To a petition in which the petitioners asked that the writ of injunction ■ issue to restrain the defendants from interfering with petitioners’ right of possession of named premises, the defendants interposed certain demurrers seeking dismissal of the action. The court entered no judgment upon the demurrers, but after consideration of evidence presented by both parties granted an interlocutory injunction “until further order of the court.” In the circumstances and the state of the record we can not hold that there was an abuse of discretion in the grant of the order to which exception is taken, or that the court erred therein. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. George G. Dean and Marion Williamson, for plaintiff in error. Poole & Fraser, contra.

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

Russell, O. J.

To a petition in which the petitioners asked that the writ of injunction ■ issue to restrain the defendants from interfering with petitioners’ right of possession of named premises, the defendants interposed certain demurrers seeking dismissal of the action. The court entered no judgment upon the demurrers, but after consideration of evidence presented by both parties granted an interlocutory injunction “until further order of the court.” In the circumstances and the state of the record we can not hold that there was an abuse of discretion in the grant of the order to which exception is taken, or that the court erred therein. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. George G. Dean and Marion Williamson, for plaintiff in error. Poole & Fraser, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 112, 176 Ga. 132, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vance-v-vogel-ga-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack