Court Opinion

ID: 9865578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:04:25.561063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:30.742056
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
The plaintiffs in error contend that this court overlooked the evidence that a temporary building permit was granted the defendants, but that this permit was exprqpsly revoked by the building committee; and that the building ordinance of the City of Pelham of January 15,1930, was not considered by the court. A casual examination of the statement of facts will reveal that such contentions are without merit. While it is contended by the plaintiffs in error that the building permit granted was “temporary” and later “revoked,” the trial court was amply authorized to find against such contentions. The copy of the building permit appearing in the record does not purport by its terms to be “temporary,” nor is any authority cited granting the right to the City of Pelham to grant a “temporary” building permit which may later be revoked at the pleasure of the granting authority. The plaintiffs in error did not introduce any evidence to show a violation by the defendants of the ordinance of January 15, 1930. W. H. Simpson, one of the defendants, testified that the construction of the building was not begun until a formal building permit was granted by the City of Pelham, and that the witness furnished all information requested by the Clerk of the City of Pelham at the time the building permit was granted. The testimony of Simpson alone (had there been any evidence for the plaintiffs that the ordinance of January 15, 1930, was not complied with) supports the findings of the trial judge in favor of the defendants. The rule that this court will not control the discretion of the trial court, unless abused, on conflicting evidence, in the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction, has been stated so many times as not to require citations here.
It is contended that the court overlooked and “ignored” the case of Wofford Oil Co. v. David, 181 Ga. 639 (183 S. E. 808), which is “controlling in the case at bar.” An examination of the facts in the Wo ford case shows that there no application for a building permit was ever made, and the Wo ford case is not authority in the present case, where the building permit was admittedly applied for, granted, and the only contention is that it was “temporary” and later “revoked.” Every material contention made by the plaintiffs in error is not without conflict in the evidence, and the motion for rehearing is therefore denied.
*202Frank S. Twitty, for plaintiffs.
Edward T. Hughes, for defendants.