Case Name: Fagg et al. vs. Donaldson
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1887-02-08
Citations: 77 Ga. 691
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fagg et al. vs. Donaldson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 691–692

Head Matter:
Fagg et al. vs. Donaldson.
An abbreviation in the hill of exceptions of documentary evidence, heard by the chancellor on an application for injunction, unless by consent of parties, is no substitute for copies in full.
February 8, 1887.
Practice in Supreme Court.
The bill of exceptions recites that the defendant read in evidence a deed from L. F. Patterson, sheriff of said county, to J. E. Donaldson to the premises in dispute, dated July 7th,1885; also a justice court fi.fa. upon which that deed is founded, in favor of J. E. Donaldson, bearer, vs. H.W. Wilson, issued from the justice’s court of the 914th district, G. M., dated September 17th, 1879, for the sum of $100.00 principal, and $53.10 interest to date of judgment, and $2.40 cost, on which was an entry of nulla bona, dated May 19th, 1885, signed F. B. Wimberly, constable, and of a levy by the same constable on the property in dispute, dated May 30th, 1885 ; . . . also a bond for title’s from T. B. ITunnewell to Hardy Winfield Wilson, dated November 10th, 1874, conditioned to make said Wilson title to the premises in dispute upon the payment of four promissory notes of $100 each, of the same date as the bond, and due January 1st, 1875, November 1st, 1875, December 1st, 1875, and January 1st, 1876, with 12 per cent, interest from date.
D. A. Russell, for plaintiffs in error.
O. G. Gurley ; Donaldson & Hawes, by J. H. Lumpkin, for defendant.

Opinion:
Bleckley, Chief Justice.
The application was for an injunction. The controversy involved title to the premises to which the deed, the levy and the bond for titles related. The injunction was denied generally; whether upon questions of law, or of fact, or of law and fact combined, does not appear. With all the evidence, this court might know how the application ought to have been decided; without it all, there is much more danger of mistake. A mere desci-iption of the missing documents is not sufficient. 63 Ga. 345. It has been ruled that ex parte abbreviation of writing will not suffice in lieu of complete copies. 72 Ga. 215. This ruling was made upon a brief of evidence, but it applies equally to documents introduced on the hearing of an application for injunction. See rule 10 of this court.
The motion of the defendant to dismiss the writ of error is granted.
Writ of error dismissed.