Legal Opinion

Burkhalter v. Minter-Smith Hardware Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided April 18, 1925No. 4630PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

1. “Equity cases shall be tried in the county where a defendant resides against whom substantial relief is prayed, except that in cases of injunction to stay pending proceedings the suit may be *308brought in the county where the proceedings are pending, provided no relief is prayed as to matters not included in such litigation. Civil Code, §§ 6540, 5527.” Amsler v. Lamar & Rankin, Drug Co., 146 Ga. 635 (92 S. E. 55); Stone v. King-Hodgson Co., 140 Ga. 487 (79 S. E. 120). And see Bruce v. Neal Bank, 147 Ga. 392 (94 S. E. 241) ; Ruis v. Lothridge, 149 Ga. 474 (100 S. E. 635). The case of Home…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ruis v. LothridgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
  2. Home Mixture Guano Co. v. WoolfolkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
  3. Stone v. King-Hodgson Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1913
  4. Bruce v. Neal BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1917
  5. Amsler & Ferguson v. Lamar & Rankin Drug Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1917

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Askew v. Bassett Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API