Legal Opinion
Burns v. Hale
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided June 18, 1926No. 5257PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.
1. An interlocutory injunction which, if enforced, would result in the dispossession of the defendant and the admission of the plaintiff into the possession of the premises in controversy, is in legal effect a mandatory injunction; and the relief afforded by such injunctive order is not, under our law, within the proper scope of the writ of injunction. Russell v. Mohr-Weil Lumber Co., 102 Ga. 563 (29 S. E. 271); Vaughn v. Yawn, 103 Ga. 557 (29 S. E. 759) ; Glover v. Newsome, 134 Ga. 375 (67 S. E. 935) ; Mize v. Herring, 137 Ga. 815 (74 S. E. 534) ; Dekle v. McLeod, 144 Ga. 290 (86 S. E. 1082)…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Russell v. Mohr-Weil Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. OverbySupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Chestatee Pyrites Co. v. Cavenders Creek Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Vaughn v. YawnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Glover v. NewsomeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Cannon v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Goble v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Sutton v. AdamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
- Groover v. BrandonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Lawrence v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.