Cone v. Jones

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cone v. Jones

172 S.E. 465, 178 Ga. 189, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 5

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 9, 1934

DocketNo. 9764

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 465 (Cone v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cone v. Jones, 172 S.E. 465, 178 Ga. 189, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 5 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. It affirmatively appears from the statement of facts herewith reported that the court has not ordered payment of any of the accounts or demands rendered. The court expressly refused to approve or disapprove for payment any of such demands on the application for an interlocutory injunction.

2. The Civil Code (1910), § 4872, provides that any such expenses “shall be paid out of the county treasury, . . upon the certificate of the judge of the superior court,” as a part of the expenses of the court. Chatham County v. Gaudry, 120 Ga. 121 (47 S. E. 634) ; Watkins v. Tift, 177 Ga. 640 (170 S. E. 918, 922).

3. This court will not assume, in advance of an express ruling of the superior court, that its judgment of approval or disapproval will be erroneous. Nothing in the present case shows any such threatening injury to the county as will authorize the grant of the extraordinary equitable relief of injunction. Long v. Railroad Commission, 145 Ga. 353 (89 S. E. 328); Georgia Public Service Commission v. Camel Lines Inc., 177 Ga. 570 (170 S. E. 674). The court did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices conour, except Sill, J., absent because of illness. Mark Bolding and Henry A. Beaman, for plaintiffs. William D. Thomson, Charles B. Shelton, and Ralph H. Pharr, for defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

1. It affirmatively appears from the statement of facts herewith reported that the court has not ordered payment of any of the accounts or demands rendered. The court expressly refused to approve or disapprove for payment any of such demands on the application for an interlocutory injunction.

2. The Civil Code (1910), § 4872, provides that any such expenses “shall be paid out of the county treasury, . . upon the certificate of the judge of the superior court,” as a part of the expenses of the court. Chatham County v. Gaudry, 120 Ga. 121 (47 S. E. 634) ; Watkins v. Tift, 177 Ga. 640 (170 S. E. 918, 922).

3. This court will not assume, in advance of an express ruling of the superior court, that its judgment of approval or disapproval will be erroneous. Nothing in the present case shows any such threatening injury to the county as will authorize the grant of the extraordinary equitable relief of injunction. Long v. Railroad Commission, 145 Ga. 353 (89 S. E. 328); Georgia Public Service Commission v. Camel Lines Inc., 177 Ga. 570 (170 S. E. 674). The court did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices conour, except Sill, J., absent because of illness. Mark Bolding and Henry A. Beaman, for plaintiffs. William D. Thomson, Charles B. Shelton, and Ralph H. Pharr, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E. 465, 178 Ga. 189, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cone-v-jones-ga-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack