Hester v. Exley & Keller
This text of 60 S.E. 1053 (Hester v. Exley & Keller) 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.
Opinion
1. Where at the time set for the interlocutory hearing of a petition for injunction the case was continued until a later date, and. the judge notified the parties that he would then strictly enforce a rule requiring all affidavits intended to be used as evidence to be served upon the opposite party twenty-four hours before the hearing,, there Was, when the ease came on under the order of postponement, no error in refusing to allow affidavits to be introduced which had not been thus served. See, in this connection, Huff v. Markham, 70 Ga. 284 ; Boyce v. Burchard, 21 Ga. 71 ; Sylvania Water Co. v. Overstreet, 126 Ga. 235 (52 S. E. 164).
’.2. Nor, under such circumstances, was there any error in refusing to permit the persons who had made the rejected affidavits to testify orally to the matters contained therein.
3. Nor did the judge err in refusing to again postpone the hearing, in order that the party who had offered the rejected affidavits might have another opportunity to serve the same upon the opposite party in compliance with the rule which had been announced by the judge, when no reason whatever was shown w]iy such rule had not been previously complied with.
•4. Under the evidence ■ submitted, there was no abuse of discretion in dissolving the temporary restraining order and refusing the injunction.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 S.E. 1053, 130 Ga. 460, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hester-v-exley-keller-ga-1908.