Case ID: ga_53/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eugene S. Ballin & Company et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. M. Ferst & Company et al., defendants in error.
    The refusal of a motion to dissolve an injunction, granted on order to show cause, is not subject to review by this court, under sections 3212 et seq. of the Code, even though said motion may have been made by defendants who have had themselves made parties since said writ was ordered to issue. This principle applies as well to a motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver. (R.)
    Injunction. Receiver. Before the Supreme Court. January Term, 1875.
    The above head-note explains itself.
    West & Cunningham; A. T. Akebman, for plaintiffs in error.
    J. R. Saussy; Howell & Denmark; Jackson, Law-ton & Basinger; George A. Mercer, for defendants.