Case ID: ga_161/html/0567-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hill, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alford et al. v. Gibson.
    Appeal and Error 3 C. J> p. 1270, n. 42 New.
   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, 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.

Injunction. Before Judge Irwin. Floyd superior court. March 13, 1925.

Willingham, Wright & Covington and Benny & Wright, for plaintiffs in error.

Maddox, Matthews & Owens and James Maddox, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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.