Zorn v. Murray
This text of 56 S.E. 454 (Zorn v. Murray) 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.
Opinion
1. While the petition in this ease ma.y have set out an equitable cause of action (Worthy v. Tate, 44 Ga. 152; Gilmore v. Wells, 78 Ga. 187; Brooks v. Stroud, 111 Ga. 875; Brown v. Bonds, 125 Ga. 833), yet under the evidence, especially that tending to show that the petitioner had attorned to the defendant as his landlord, and had given and paid notes for the rent of the premises involved in the controversy, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge in [390]*390refusing an injunction to prevent the landlord from proceeding to dispossess him as a tenant holding over, even if the evidence might have ' authorized him to grant it, and to consolidate the different suits under the equitable petition. Brown v. Bonds, supra; Bullard v. Hudson, 125 Ga. 393; Willis v. Harrell, 118 Ga. 906; House v. Oliver, 123 Ga. 784.
2. The case of National Bank v. Cariton, 96 Ga. 469, did not involve any question of landlord and tenant.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
56 S.E. 454, 127 Ga. 389, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zorn-v-murray-ga-1907.