Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925

Burkhalter v. Minter-Smith Hardware Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia · Decided April 18, 1925 · Hill

160 Ga. 307; 127 S.E. 852; 1925 Ga. LEXIS 144

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Askew v. Bassett Furniture Co. (Ga. 1931)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Hill, J.

1. “Equity cases shall be tried in the county where a defendant resides against whom substantial relief is prayed, except that in cases of injunction to stay pending proceedings the suit may be *308brought in the county where the proceedings are pending, provided no relief is prayed as to matters not included in such litigation. Civil Code, §§ 6540, 5527.” Amsler v. Lamar & Rankin, Drug Co., 146 Ga. 635 (92 S. E. 55); Stone v. King-Hodgson Co., 140 Ga. 487 (79 S. E. 120). And see Bruce v. Neal Bank, 147 Ga. 392 (94 S. E. 241) ; Ruis v. Lothridge, 149 Ga. 474 (100 S. E. 635). The case of Home Mixture Guano Co. v. Woolfolk, 148 Ga. 567 (1, 2) (97 S. E. 637), and similar eases cited by the plaintiff in error, are distinguishable from the case at bar.

No. 4630. April 18, 1925.

2. Applying the principle ruled in the foregoing headnote to the facts of this case, the court did not err ,in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. W. T. Burkhalter, for plaintiff. Kirkland & Kirkland, for defendant.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.