Putnam Mills & Power Co. v. Stonecypher

106 S.E. 87, 151 Ga. 14, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 131
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 18, 1921·No. No. 1957·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

Tlie Putnam Mills and Power Company brought an action against I. L. Stoneeypher et ah, seeking to enjoin the defendants from obtaining a charter in the name of Stonecypher’s Light Company, to furnish electricity for light, heat, and power. Upon presentation of the petition the judge of the superior court granted an order requiring the defendants to show cause why the injunction should not be granted, and temporarily restrained them until further order. At the preliminary hearing the judge passed the following order: “After hearing the application for injunction, the court is of the opinion that, under par. 2 of sec. 2823 of the Civil Code, it is the duty of the court to grant the application for charter of the Stoneeypher Light Company, as it is legitimately within the purview and intention of said Code. This judgment is not intended to give to the Stoneeypher Light Company any legal rights as to the streets of the City of Eatonton, or debar the complainant of hereafter raising the question as to any vested' rights that they may now have.” The petitioner filed a bill of exceptions, setting forth the case, the order as quoted, and then continuing as follows: “ To which order the plaintiff in error, the said Putnam Mills & Power Co., then and there excepted, and now excepts and assigns the same as error, as being contrary to law; and says that the judge should then and there have granted said injunction.”

The order passed by the judge at the preliminary hearing did not refer to the prior restraining order, nor expressly refuse to grant 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. As there was no judgment upon which error could be assigned, the bill of exceptions must be dismissed.

Writ of error dismissd.

All the Justices concur.

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

Putnam Mills & Power Co. v. Stonecypher, 106 S.E. 87, 151 Ga. 14, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 131 (Ga. 1921).

106 S.E. 87 (Putnam Mills & Power Co. v. Stonecypher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Amos v. Amos
95 S.E.2d 687 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Calhoun v. State
84 S.E.2d 198 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Akers Motor Lines, Inc. v. Cook
83 S.E.2d 596 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
RICHLAND BOX COMPANY v. Harbuck
57 S.E.2d 666 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
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)
College Park Cemetery Properties Inc. v. Cottongim
196 S.E. 409 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Druggists Co-Operative Ice-Cream Inc. v. Cravey
188 S.E. 541 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
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)
Forrester v. Denny
150 S.E. 555 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Shirley v. Standard Oil Co.
150 S.E. 215 (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)
Bradfield v. Abercrombie
107 S.E. 45 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)