West v. Shackelford

74 S.E. 1079, 138 Ga. 163, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 241
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 15, 1912·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. When a judgment refusing an interlocutory injunction is brought to the Supreme Court for review, the trial judge is authorized to grant a supersedeas upon such terms as may by him be deemed necessary to preserve the rights of the parties until the judgment of the Supreme Court can be had. Civil Code, § 5502; Stokes v. Stokes, 126 Ga. 804 (55 S. E. 1023). It is left, however, in the sound legal discretion of the judge to grant or refuse it. See Savannah, Florida [164]*164& Western Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 113 Ga. 916 (39 S. E. 399).

May 15, 1912. This writ of error was upon the refusal of a supersedeas in the case next preceding.

2. The judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a supersedeas in this case. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

West v. Shackelford, 74 S.E. 1079, 138 Ga. 163, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 241 (Ga. 1912).

74 S.E. 1079 (West v. Shackelford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hutchins v. Howard
92 S.E.2d 13 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Pope v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
20 S.E.2d 13 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Tift v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
131 S.E. 46 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Prater v. Barge
78 S.E. 119 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)