Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

151 Ga. 401

Bradfield v. Abercrombie

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided April 14, 1921

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1921-04-14

<p>Petition for injunction. Before Judge Irwin. Douglas superior court. May 13, 1920.</p>

Relies on Stubbs v. McConnell · Hollinshead v. Town of Lincolnton · Hogan v. Hogan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1921-04-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 1953

19 state decisions

801921193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Fish, C. J.

¶1Upon presentation of a petition for injunction and other relief, the judge granted a temporary restraining order and a rule requiring the defendants to show cause at a time stated why an interlocutory injunction should not be granted. On the hearing at the time designated the judge passed the following order: “After hearing evidence and argument of counsel on the within case, application for injunction, etc., it is ordered that the restraining order heretofore granted be and the same is dissolved.” No further order was passed. Held, that there is no provision of law for reviewing by writ of error an interlocutory order merely revoking or setting aside a temporary restraining order. Hollinshead v. Lincolnton, 84 Ga. 590 (10 S. E. 1094); Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21 (45 S. E. 710);

*402No. 2153.April 14, 1921.Petition for injunction. Before Judge Irwin. Douglas superior court. May 13, 1920.James & Bedgood, for plaintiff. .Astor Merritt, for defendants.

¶2Sagan v. Sagan, 148 Ga. 151 (96 S. E. 96). The most the plaintiff in error can contend for is that the order revoking the former temporary restraining order was by inference or implication a judgment refusing an interlocutory injunction. “There can be no order or judgment by inference or implication that can be the subject of review by an appellate court.” Putnam Mills & Power Go. v. Stoneeypher, 151 Ga. 14 (106 S. E. 87). The order which dissolved the prior -emporary restraining order, without more, left pending the petition for interlocutory injunction to be heard and passed on. The order upon which error is assigned not being subject to review, the bill of exceptions must be dismissed.

¶3Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concwr.
/151/ga/401 · .json · Public domain