Case Name: CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1917-10-29
Citations: 246 F. 440
Docket Number: No. 3134
Parties: CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO.
Judges: Before WARKER and BATTS, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, Dis-’ trict Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 246
Pages: 440–440

Head Matter:
CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 29, 1917.)
No. 3134.
Appeal and Error <&wkey;954(l) — Discretion op Court — Preliminary Injunction — Issuance.
An interlocutory decree ordering the issuance of a preliminary injunction will not be disturbed on appeal, where no abuse of discretion was shown, and it did not appear that the injunction would cause any substantial injury to defendant, though complainant should fail to prevail in the suit on the merits.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia; Emory Speer, Judge.
Bill by the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company against the City Council of Augusta. From an interlocutory decree ordering the issuance of a preliminary injunction (242 Fed. 538)', defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Isaac S. Peebles, Jr., of Augusta, Ga., for appellant.
C. E. Dunbar, of Augusta, Ga., and Eugene R. Black, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before WARKER and BATTS, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, Dis-’ trict Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree ordering the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Our examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that it does not show that there was an abuse of discretion, in making the order complained of, and that it has not been made to appear that the order has resulted, or is likely to result, in causing any substantial injury to the appellant while the cause is pending, even though the appellee should fail, in the trial of the case on its merits, to' sustain the right asserted by its bill.
As no prejudicial error is shown, the decree appealed from is affirmed.