Case ID: ga_158/html/0600-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gilbert, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bigham v. Yundt et al.
    
    No. 4314.
    July 19, 1924.
    Petition for injunction. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. February 25, 1924.
    Mrs. M. A. Bigham sought an injunction to restrain Boykin and Yundt, plaintiffs in a fi. fa. issued from the city court of Atlanta against F. M. Butt, and Lowry, sheriff of Fulton County, “from selling” described realty, upon which Boykin and Yundt had caused to be levied, prior to the issuance of that fi. fa., a purchase-money attachment issued from the municipal court of Atlanta, “under the judgment rendered in the city court of Atlanta based upon said attachment issued in the municipal court of Atlanta,” and “from putting up said property for sale at public outcry.” The court refused to grant interlocutory injunction. It does not appear that any supersedeas was issued. From the exhibits attached to the bill of exceptions it appears that the property had been sold by the sheriff under the levy prior to the suing out of the writ of error. The defendants in error filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error, upon the ground that the acts against which injunction was prayed have been fully performed, and the question made by the bill of exceptions is therefore moot. There are attached to this motion as exhibits an affidavit made by Bojddn, his attorney, and Lowry, to the effect that the sale was made on March 4, 1924; and copy of the sheriff’s deed made in connection therewith.
    
      F. A. Hooper & Son, for plaintiff.
    
      Napier, Wright & Wood and J. W. LeCraw, for defendants.
   Gilbert, J.

1. “This court will in ho case undertake to pass upon questions presented by a bill of exceptions, when it affirmatively appears that, even if the judgment of the court below were reversed, the plaintiff in error would derive no benefit from the adjudication.”

2. It appearing that since the refusal of the injunction prayed for in the court below, no supersedeas having been applied for or granted, the defendant has done all that was sought to be enjoined, the writ of error will be dismissed without prejudice. Davis v. Mayor &c. of Jasper, 119 Ga. 57 (45 S. E. 724); Henderson v. Hoppe, 103 Ga. 684, 686 (30 S. E. 653); Fletcher v. Harper, 135 Ga. 404 (69 S. E. 562); Tabor v. Hipp, 136 Ga. 124 (70 S. E. 886, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 246); Clements v. Wilkerson, 151 Ga. 467 (107 S. E. 47); Clower v. Langley, 153 Ga. 154 (111 S. E. 563). Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.