Alford v. Gibson
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hill, J.
Where a verdict and judgment for a stated sum of money is rendered against a party who sues out a bill of exceptions bringing the case here for review, he is not entitled to an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the judgment and the fi. fa. issued thereon until the decision of the ease brought here to review the judgment first referred to, *568 where no supersedeas was obtained in the first instance. Civil Code (1910), § 6167; Parker-Hensel Engineering Co. v. Schuler, 133 Ga. 696 ( 66 S. E. 800 ); Ivey v. Payne, 136 Ga. 519 (2) ( 71 S. E. 886 ); Cumberland Fertilizer Co. v. Williams, 146 Ga. 27 ( 90 S. E. 464 ). The judge therefore erred in granting an interlocutory injunction.
No. 4835. January 15, 1926. Rehearing denied February 10, 1926. Willingham, Wright & Covington and Benny & Wright, for plaintiffs in error. Maddox, Matthews & Owens and James Maddox, contra.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
On Rehearing
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ON MOTION FOB REHEARING.
The case of Short v. Cohen, 11 Ga. 39 , which it is insisted by counsel for movant was overlooked in the decision of the ease, was considered by the court when the original decision was rendered. The facts of that case are different from the facts of this case.. The motion for rehearing is therefore denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.