Case Name: Thomas H. Clark et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Herring & Mock, defendants in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1871-01
Citations: 42 Ga. 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas H. Clark et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Herring & Mock, defendants in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 240–242

Head Matter:
Thomas H. Clark et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Herring & Mock, defendants in error.
A bill praying for an injunction was presented to the Judge for his sanction, and a rule nisi was granted, calling upon the defendants to show cause, on the day therein named, why the injunction should not be granted, which was duly served on the defendants, but they failed to appear and show cause on the day named by the Judge, and afterward the Judge granted the injunction. Whereupon the defendants, by their counsel, petitioned the Judge to suspend his order granting the injunction, which was refused, and the defendants excepted.
Meld, That there was no error in the refusal of the Judge to grant the petition to suspend his order granting the injunction, on the statement of facts contained in the record; that their remedy was to move a dissolution of the injunction in manner prescribed by law in such cases, if they desired to get rid of it.
Equity Practice. Injunction. Before Judge Strozer. Dougherty Superior Court. Chambers. December, 1870.
Herring & Mock filed a bill for injunction against R. H. and M.- J. Towns, administrators of A. J. Towns, deceased, B. A. Collier and Thomas H. Clark. On the 6th of October, 1870, Judge Clark ordered the defendant’s to show cause, instanter, before him, in Chambers, why this injunction should not be granted. This order was not served. Said county, ad interim, became part of the Albany circuit. On the 19th of November, 1870, Judge Strozer ordered the defendants to be served with a copy of the bill, and that they show cause, before him, in Chambers, on the 26th of November, 1870, why the injunction should not issue. Collier, Clark, and one of the administrators, acknowledged service and waived a copy on the 21st of November, 1870. The other administrator was not served.
No appearance was made on the 26th of November, by either side. On .the 2d of December, 1870, no answer had been filed, nor any appearance made by defendants, and the Judge ordered the injunction to issue as prayed for. Its operation was to prevent Clark, who was sub-lessee under Collier, from keeping a bar in a hotel in which complainants claimed an exclusive right to do so, by virtue of a contract with A. J. Towns, who owned the hotel and had leased a bar-room in it to complainants for five years.
This injunction issued, and was served on the 3d of December. On the same day, the defendants appeared in the Judge’s Chambers and asked him to suspend said order, upon their verified showing, as follows: They acknowledged service to accommodate the Clerk, supposing they had to answer the bill at the next term of the Court, (which was to sit on the 5th of December, 1870,) and tire counsel whom they wished to employ was absent from home; they knew nothing of any intended action in the premises till they were served with said order. No appearance was had on the 26th of
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. Ponder vs. McGruder. November; the complainants only appeared on the 2d of December, and the proceeding was wholly ex parte. They further denied the fact of the making of the pretended contract with A. J. Towns, on which the bill was bottomed, and attacked its validity, in law, if made as alleged. Judge Strozer refused to suspend the injunction, and that refusal is assigned as error.
Vason & Davis, by R. II. Clark, for plaintiffs in error.
D. H. Pope, by Z. D. Harrison, for defendants.

Opinion:
Warner, J.
There was no error in the refusal of the Judge below to grant the petition to suspend his order granting the injunction, on the statement of facts disclosed by the record in this case; the proper coarse for the defendants to have taken, was to move for a dissolution of the injunction in the manner prescribed by law in such cases, if they desired to get rid of it.
Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.