Legal Opinion

Hapeville-Block Inc. v. Walker

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided October 13, 1948No. 16361PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Head, Justice.

The plaintiff in this case is clearly not seeking an injunction to restrain present acts. The actual relief sought is the performance of acts by the defendants, which it is alleged are necessary to preserve the plaintiff’s property from injury caused by excavations made by Shackleford prior to the time the defendants, Walker and Henderson, acquired title to their property.

The Code, § 55-110, provides: “An injunction may only restrain; it may not compel a party to perform an act. It may restrain until performance.” In construing this section of the Code, it has been held by this…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Goodrich v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  2. Westbrook v. ComerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
  3. Simmons v. LindsaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
  4. Georgia Pacific Railway v. Mayor of DouglasvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
  5. Shurley v. BlackSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Whipkey v. TurnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
  2. Sandt v. MasonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  3. Faulkner v. Georgia Power Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1978
  4. Blackwell v. FarrarSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
  5. Brown v. WrightSupreme Court of Georgia · 1974

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API