Forehand v. Moody
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Head, Justice.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) It is very strongly argued and insisted in the brief for the plaintiff in error that the Code, § 26-6905, as follows, “Any person who shall pursue his business Or the work of his ordinary calling on the Lord’s day, works of necessity or charity only excepted, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,” does not contain all the provisions of the act approved March 4, 1762 by the Colonial Legislature; and that, the act of 1762 not having been repealed, the statute should contain other provisions to prohibit certain sports and pastimes on the Lord’s day.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hayden v. MitchellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Hennington v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Rose Theatre Inc. v. LillySupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Sanders v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1859
- Thompson v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Portage Township v. Full Salvation UnionMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
- Evans Theatre Corporation v. SlatonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1971
- Stoddard v. WoodsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Stoddard v. WoodsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976