Young v. Cedartown Textiles Inc.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Young v. Cedartown Textiles Inc.

68 S.E.2d 710, 208 Ga. 666, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 298, 29 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2385

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 1952

DocketNo. 17673

StatusPublished

This text of 68 S.E.2d 710 (Young v. Cedartown Textiles Inc.) 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

Young v. Cedartown Textiles Inc., 68 S.E.2d 710, 208 Ga. 666, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 298, 29 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2385 (Ga. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Wyatt, Justice.

1. The evidence was not sufficient to support the findings of the court below in the case against Mutt Young, since there was no evidence that he committed any act in violation of the order of the court. There was evidence that he went to the home of an employee of the defendant in error in company with others, and that the employee was attacked at that time. However, there was no evidence that this defendant went there for the purpose of beating the employee, or that he participated in the attack in any way. Therefore, the judgment finding him in contempt of court was error and must be reversed. There are other questions presented by the bill of exceptions in regard to Mutt Young but, in the view we take of this case, it is not necessary to decide them.

2. All other questions raised in the instant case are controlled as to all other plaintiffs in error by the rulings made in the case of Williams v. Cedartown Textiles, ante., p. 659.

[667]*667No. 17673. Argued November 13, 1951 Decided January 14, 1952 Rehearing denied January 29, 1952. Poole, Pearce & Hall, J. B. Goldthwaite Jr., Thomas S. Adair,. Robert S. Cahoon and Cecil Franklin, for plaintiffs in error. Henry A. Stewart, Stewart & York and Frank A. Constangy, contra.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur.

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

Wyatt, Justice.

1. The evidence was not sufficient to support the findings of the court below in the case against Mutt Young, since there was no evidence that he committed any act in violation of the order of the court. There was evidence that he went to the home of an employee of the defendant in error in company with others, and that the employee was attacked at that time. However, there was no evidence that this defendant went there for the purpose of beating the employee, or that he participated in the attack in any way. Therefore, the judgment finding him in contempt of court was error and must be reversed. There are other questions presented by the bill of exceptions in regard to Mutt Young but, in the view we take of this case, it is not necessary to decide them.

2. All other questions raised in the instant case are controlled as to all other plaintiffs in error by the rulings made in the case of Williams v. Cedartown Textiles, ante., p. 659.

[667]*667No. 17673. Argued November 13, 1951 Decided January 14, 1952 Rehearing denied January 29, 1952. Poole, Pearce & Hall, J. B. Goldthwaite Jr., Thomas S. Adair,. Robert S. Cahoon and Cecil Franklin, for plaintiffs in error. Henry A. Stewart, Stewart & York and Frank A. Constangy, contra.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E.2d 710, 208 Ga. 666, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 298, 29 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-cedartown-textiles-inc-ga-1952.