No. 11111 | Ga. | Dec 10, 1935
The exception is to a refusal to grant an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of property under an execution. Held, that the petitioner had an adequate and complete remedy at law by claim. Teasley v. Bradley, 110 Ga. 497 (35 S.E. 782" date_filed="1900-04-09" court="Ga." case_name="Teasley v. Bradley">35 S. E. 782, 78 Am. St. R. 113); Douglas v. Jenkins, 146 Ga. 341 (91 S.E. 49" date_filed="1916-12-19" court="Ga." case_name="Douglas v. Jenkins">91 S. E. 49, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 322); Williams v. Smith, 148 Ga. 615 (97 S.E. 670" date_filed="1918-12-11" court="Ga." case_name="Williams v. Smith">97 S. E. 670); Myers v. Warrenfells, 153 Ga. 648, 653 (113 S.E. 180" date_filed="1922-06-16" court="Ga." case_name="Myers v. Warrenfells">113 S. E. 180); Eslinger v. Herndon, 158 Ga. 823 (124 S.E. 169" date_filed="1924-09-02" court="Ga." case_name="Eslinger v. Herndon">124 S. E. 169, 900); James v. Upton, 160 Ga. 819 (129 S.E. 100" date_filed="1925-08-14" court="Ga." case_name="James v. Upton">129 S. E. 100); Perry v. Gormley, 177 Ga. 372 (170 S.E. 223" date_filed="1933-07-13" court="Ga." case_name="Perry v. Gormley">170 S. E. 223). The court did not err in refusing an injunction.
Judgment affirmed.