Legal Opinion
Kirkland v. Odum
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided July 21, 1923No. 3639PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
' We can not say that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction, and in preserving the status, until the rights of the parties can be finally settled by a verdict and decree. Counsel for the defendant asserts that it was the *135evident purpose of the plaintiff to bring his petition under the timber cutters’ act (Civil Code (1910), § 5504); and that, having so laid his action and having failed to show perfect title in himself, he was not entitled to an injunction. We can not say that it was the manifest purpose of the-…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- McRae v. Stillwell, Millen & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Nathans v. ArkwrightSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
- Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Moore & Co. v. Daugherty, Allen & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Shippen Bros. Lumber Co. v. GatesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wong v. Di GraziaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Cooper v. VaughanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- Neal Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. O'NealSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- Rodin v. MerrittCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Read v. GHDC, INC.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1985
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.