Hollinshead v. Town of Lincolnton

84 Ga. 590
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 10, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 84 Ga. 590 (Hollinshead v. Town of Lincolnton) 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
Hollinshead v. Town of Lincolnton, 84 Ga. 590 (Ga. 1890).

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

Since hearing the argument, we have scrutinized the record and find that a temporary restraining order was granted on December 23,1889, to continue in force until the hearing of the application for injunction, the time fixed for the hearing by the order of the judge being the'fourth Monday in February, 1890. On the first day of February, the restraining order was rescinded and set aside, and it is this order of rescission which is excepted to and brought here for review on a “fast” writ of error. The case does not come within §§3211, 3212 and 3213 of the code, and consequently the writ of error must be dismissed. There is no provision of law for reviewing by such a writ of error an interlocutory order revoking or setting aside a temporary restraining order. Collins v. Huff, 61 Ga. 633; Kaufman v. Ferst, 55 Ga. 350; Ballin v. Ferst, 53 Ga. 551. The time fixed for.hearing the application for injunction had not arrived when this writ of error was brought, and, so far as appears, the application has not yet been heard. Certainly the rescission of the temporary restraining order was no direct adjudication upon the right to injunction. It might well be that such a restraining [592]*592order was needless, and whether it was or not, there is no- power to rei&ew either the grant of it or its rescission. The matter is left by the law to the discretion of the judge, and this court has no right or power to control its exercise. Writ of error dismissed.

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

Related

Avary v. City of Atlanta
143 S.E.2d 183 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1965)
Moore v. Selman
136 S.E.2d 329 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Adams v. City of MacOn
48 S.E.2d 829 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Grizzel v. Grizzel
3 S.E.2d 649 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Jones v. Graham
1 S.E.2d 635 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Hall v. Hall
195 S.E. 731 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Druggists Co-Operative Ice-Cream Inc. v. Cravey
188 S.E. 541 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Traylor v. Peoples Bank
177 S.E. 702 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Hyers v. Bennett
171 S.E. 379 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Corbin v. Shadburn
171 S.E. 378 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Wofford Oil Co. v. City of Nashville
170 S.E. 369 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Edwards v. Davis
161 S.E. 607 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Barrett v. American Securities Co.
159 S.E. 866 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Crider v. Holbrook
151 S.E. 505 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Williamson v. Allen
150 S.E. 907 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Williams v. Roberts
150 S.E. 85 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
James v. Wilkerson
138 S.E. 71 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Jones
134 S.E. 300 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Touchton v. Henderson
124 S.E. 529 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Correa v. Fajardo Sugar Co.
29 P.R. 318 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 Ga. 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollinshead-v-town-of-lincolnton-ga-1890.