Harris v. Stowers
| Decision Date | 17 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | 13695. |
| Citation | 15 S.E.2d 193,192 Ga. 215 |
| Parties | HARRIS v. STOWERS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Samuel H. Wilds and A. L. Henson, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Robert L. Evans, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. 'A judgment sustaining a plea of res judicata to a suit but not ordering dismissal of the action, is not 'final,' within the meaning of the Code, § 6-701.' Loveless v. McCollum, 189 Ga. 219, 5 S.E.2d 582, 583; English v. Rozenkrantz, 150 Ga 745, 746, 105 S.E. 292.
2. The order here excepted to provided merely that 'the defendants' plea of res adjudicata is sustained, and the restraining order heretofore granted is dissolved and revoked.' As held in a long line of decisions, an order merely dissolving, revoking, rescinding, vacating cancelling, or setting aside a previously granted ex parte restraining order, is not a judgment refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction, such as can be reviewed by a fast bill of exceptions under the Code, § 6-903, and the judgment can not be so construed by inference or implication. Druggists Co-operative Ice-Cream Inc. v. Cravey, 183 Ga. 373, 374, 188 S.E. 541; Wofford Oil Co. v Nashville, 177 Ga. 460, 461, 170 S.E. 369; Jones v Graham 187 Ga. 622, 1 S.E.2d 635; Grizzel v. Grizzel, 188 Ga. 418, 421, 3 S.E.2d 649, and cit. In the Grizzel case, as in the controlling earliest full-bench decision of Jones v. Warnock, 67 Ga. 484, which was followed, it was held that where a temporary restraining order was granted, and at the interlocutory hearing the judge refused to dissolve it and continued it in force until further order, this was in effect a temporary injunction. However, as was stated in the later case, no question was there presented as to 'whether an order passed at the interlocutory hearing, dissolving, revoking, rescinding, vacating, or setting aside a previously granted restraining order, should be construed as a refusal of an injunction, so as to authorize a fast bill of exceptions.' [188 Ga. 418, 3 S.E.2d 651.] The disinction between the two classes of cases arises by virtue of the language of the Code, § 55-201, that when a 'restraining order' is granted it 'shall have all the force of an injunction until rescinded or modified by the court,' so that when at the interlocutory hearing the judge expressly refuses to dissolve it and continue it in force, the statute makes such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peerless Laundry Co. v. Abraham
...150 Ga. 745, 105 S.E. 292; Douglas v. Hardin, 163 Ga. 643, 136 S.E. 793; Loveless v. McCollum, 189 Ga. 219, 5 S.E.2d 582; Harris v. Stowers, 192 Ga. 215, 15 S.E.2d 193. also, Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353, 41 S.E. 594. 3. A direct bill of exceptions to a ruling made pendente lite, which does ......
-
Adams v. City of Macon
...164 Ga. 149, 138 S.E. 71; Goss v. Brannon, 165 Ga. 502, 141 S.E. 295; Williams v. Roberts, 169 Ga. 226, 150 S.E. 89; Harris v. Stowers, 192 Ga. 215(2), 15 S.E.2d 193; Astin v. Carden, 194 Ga. 758, 22 S.E.2d 481. this rule is not otherwise where the order of dissolution is granted after hear......
-
Astin v. Carden
...164 Ga. 149, 138 S.E. 71; Goss v. Brannon, 165 Ga. 502, 141 S.E. 295; Williams v. Roberts, 169 Ga. 226, 150 S.E. 85; Harris v. Stowers, 192 Ga. 215(2), 15 S.E.2d 193. leaves for review only so much of the order as refused to appoint a receiver. 2. Did the judge err in refusing to appoint a ......
-
Darden v. Roberts
...Bozeman v. Ward-Truitt Co., 141 Ga. 45(1), 80 S.E. 320; Vanzant v. First National Bank, 164 Ga. 772(2, a), 139 S.E. 537; Harris v. Stowers, 192 Ga. 215(1), 15 S.E.2d 193. The rule is different as to a writ of error taken to an striking or refusing to strike a petition. Lowe v. Burke, 79 Ga.......