No. 12907 | Ga. | Jul 12, 1939
Lead Opinion
This case falls within the general rule that injunction will not issue to restrain a criminal prosecution. Code, § 5.5-102;. Gault v. Wallis, 53 Ga. 675 (4); Smith v. Carlton, 182 Ga. 494 (185 S.E. 777" date_filed="1936-05-12" court="Ga." case_name="Sisk v. State">185 S. E. 777); Jewel Tea Co. v. Augusta, 183 Ga. 817 (190 S.E. 1" date_filed="1937-02-11" court="Ga." case_name="Jewel Tea Co. v. City Council">190 S. E. 1); Salter v. Columbus, 125 Ga. 96 (54 S.E. 74" date_filed="1906-03-23" court="Ga." case_name="Salter v. City of Columbus">54 S. E. 74).
Judgment affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially. Construing the petition most strongly against the pleader, it complains of an isolated case of arrest' and criminal prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance. On his trial the defendant could set up any defense as to validity of the ordinance, and consequently had an adequate remedy at law without resort to a court of equity. The case differs on its facts and is not controlled by the ruling in Chaires v. Atlanta, 164 Ga. 755 (4) (139 S.E. 559" date_filed="1927-09-14" court="Ga." case_name="Chaires v. City of Atlanta">139 S. E. 559).