Wofford Oil Co. v. Houck

Supreme Court of Georgia

Wofford Oil Co. v. Houck

152 S.E. 47, 170 Ga. 74, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 402

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 12, 1930

DocketNo. 7379

StatusPublished

This text of 152 S.E. 47 (Wofford Oil Co. v. Houck) 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

Wofford Oil Co. v. Houck, 152 S.E. 47, 170 Ga. 74, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 402 (Ga. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Hines, J.

Under conflicting evidence the court did not err in granting’ an interlocutory injunction. The defendant was undertaking to dismantle a filling-station by removing from the premises upon which it was erected certain underground tanks which had been installed in 1921, and claimed the right to do so under a contract dated January 11, 1929, which did not refer to tanks [75]*75already installed, but which contemplated. the installation oí tanks under said contract; and it not being made clear irom the evidence that the defendant was justified in dismantling this station under said contract, we can not hold as a matter of law that an injunction should have been denied. Tt does not appear that the judge failed to exercise his discretion in this matter.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hines, J.

Under conflicting evidence the court did not err in granting’ an interlocutory injunction. The defendant was undertaking to dismantle a filling-station by removing from the premises upon which it was erected certain underground tanks which had been installed in 1921, and claimed the right to do so under a contract dated January 11, 1929, which did not refer to tanks [75]*75already installed, but which contemplated. the installation oí tanks under said contract; and it not being made clear irom the evidence that the defendant was justified in dismantling this station under said contract, we can not hold as a matter of law that an injunction should have been denied. Tt does not appear that the judge failed to exercise his discretion in this matter.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E. 47, 170 Ga. 74, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wofford-oil-co-v-houck-ga-1930.