Case ID: ga_40/html/0548-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel B. Glass et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Geo. E. Clarke et al., defendants in error.
    1. Glass et al. filed a bill in Sumter county against Clarke et al., and obtained a rule nisi calling upon them to show cause why an injunction should not be granted as therein prayed for.
    At the hearing the injunction was refused. Thereupon, Glass, etal., sued out their' writ of error. The bill of exceptions recited that the defendants answered the bill and that on the hearing a number of affidavits were read by complainants and a number by defendants, that defendants demurred to the bill, but that the Judge refused to pass upon the demurrer, but considered only the bill, answer and said affidavits; and it concluded thus: “the facts will fully appear by reference to. the record, the bill, answer and affidavits.” The error assigned is the refusal of the injunction.
    To this bill of exceptions, certified in the usual form, the Clerk attached a copy of the record and various affidavits. This certificate of the Clerk made no allusion to the affidavits:
    This case was dismissed for non-compliance with said 10th rule. McCay J. concurred, hesitating, because of the peculiar facts of the case. It being a proceeding in vacation, and wholly in writing, he was not very clear that the affidavits are not part of the record.
    C. T. Goode, for plaintiffs in error.
    Hawkins & Burke, Jack Brown, for defendants.