Legal Opinion
DeBerry v. Spikes
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided June 14, 1939No. 12843PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Grice, Justice.
The defendant in error insists that there are other reasons why the judge properly denied the writ of mandamus. We find it necessary to discuss but one of them; for even if the application for mandamus be conceded to be in other respects sufficient, the judge properly declined to issue it, on the application of the principle stated in the headnote. The rule there announced is directly supported by the Code, § 64-101; Hall v. Martin, 136 Ga. 549 (71 S. E. 803); Bearden v. Davis, 139 Ga. 635 (77 S. E. 871); Porter v. Garmony, 148 Ga. 261 (96 S. E. 426); Hogansville Banking Co. v.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Porter v. GarmonySupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
- Lindsey v. Board of Commissioners of Roads & RevenuesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Hogansville Banking Co. v. City of HogansvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
- Bearden v. DavesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Hall v. MartinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
3Cited by7 opinions
- Harper v. BurgessSupreme Court of Georgia · 1969
- Densmore v. WestSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Wofford v. PorteSupreme Court of Georgia · 1956
- Hayes v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Wofford v. City of GainesvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.