No. 9321 | Ga. | Sep 13, 1933
The allegations of the petition in its entirety, especially in view of paragraph 19 thereof, considered in connection with the prayer for injunction, bring the case within the principle applied in Cathcart Van & Storage Co. v. Atlanta, 169 Ga. 791 (151 S.E. 489" date_filed="1930-01-18" court="Ga." case_name="Cathcart Van & Storage Co. v. City of Atlanta">151 S. E. 489), in which it was held: “Where suit is filed in a court of equity, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a provision of a municipal charter on the ground that such provision is unconstitutional, and where it appears that no arrest has been made, no property levied upon, and no other interference with the person or the property rights of the petitioner, but that the petition is based upon a mere apprehension that such may be done by the municipality, it is proper to refuse an interlocutory injunction.” See also Georgia Public-Service Commission v. Parcel Delivery Co., ante, 600.
(а) The case differs, on its facts, from Baldwin v. Atlanta, 147 Ga. 28 (92 S.E. 630" date_filed="1917-05-17" court="Ga." case_name="Baldwin v. City of Atlanta">92 S. E. 630); Upchurch v. LaGrange, 159 Ga. 113 (125 S.E. 47" date_filed="1924-10-16" court="Ga." case_name="Upchurch v. City of Lagrange">125 S. E. 47) ; Wofford Oil Co. v. Boston, 170 Ga. 624 (154 S.E. 145" date_filed="1930-06-16" court="Ga." case_name="Wofford Oil Co. v. City of Boston">154 S. E. 145); and a different judgment is hot required by the rulings in either of those cases.
(б) Accordingly the judge did not err in sustaining the demurrer and in dismissing the action. Judgment affirmed.