History
  • No items yet
midpage
Casey v. McDaniel
154 Ga. 181
Ga.
1922
Check Treatment
Atkinson, J.

1. It has been held by this court that ā€œ Where two parties entered into a written contract, whereby one of them was to let the other have fifty acres of land, and was to furnish sufficient stock to cultivate it, and the other was to furnish the labor, and they were to divide the crops, if the former failed to furnish the necessary plow-stock and took charge of the crops, in the absence of any allegation of insolvency, there was an ample remedy at law, and a resort to equity was unnecessary.ā€ Nicholson v. Cook, 76 Ga. 24. See also Bussell V. Bishop, 152 Ga. 428 (110 S. E. 174). Applying the principle above stated, the judge did not err in refusing a temporary injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Casey v. McDaniel
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Sep 16, 1922
Citation: 154 Ga. 181
Docket Number: No. 2752
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.