Voyles v. Fed. Land Bank Of D.C.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 8586.,8586.
• Parties: VOYLES. v. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF COLUMBIA.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

173 Ga. 844

162 S.E. 106

VOYLES.

v.FEDERAL LAND BANK OF COLUMBIA.

No. 8586.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 16, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a bill of exceptions complains of a refusal of an interlocutory injunction, and it appears therefrom that evidence was introduced upon the hearing, and such evidence is neither incorporated in the bill nor attached thereto as an exhibit properly authenticated, and it does not appear that a brief of the evidence was approved and filed so as to become a part of the record, the judgment will be affirmed, as without such evidence this court cannot determine whether the court erred in refusing the injunction. There being no brief of evidence before us, we will assume that the judgment of the court below was correct and affirm it.

Error from Superior Court, Jackson County; W. W. Stark, Judge.

Action by J. O. Voyles against the Federal Land Bank of Columbia. Judgment was entered refusing an interlocutory injunction, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Strickland & Gillen, of Athens, for plaintiff in error.

Cooley & Cooley, of Jefferson, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL, C. J.

The bill of exceptions in this case complains that the trial judge, "after hearing the evidence in the above-stated case, entered the following order towit: 'At Chambers, Commerce, Georgia, June 27th, 1931. This case was heard at time and place fixed by the order of the court, and decision reserved. Upon considering the evidence in the case and the law, the restraining order heretofore granted by the court is vacated, and an injunction refused.' " No brief of evidence is incorporated in the bill of exceptions, or referred to therein, and the transcript of the record certified by the clerk of the trial court contains only the petition, the answer, and the order of the judge quoted above. The sole assignment of error, that the refusal of the injunction prayed for was error because contrary to law, is such as cannot be adjudicated without a review of the evidence introduced on the hear ing; and this evidence not having been brought to this court, nor any effort made to so do by the plaintiff, the judgment of the trial judge must be affirmed, as without such evidence this court cannot determine whether the judge erred in rendering the decision complained of. A timely motion was made by the defendant in error to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that "Plaintiff in error fails to incorporate in the bill of exceptions a brief of the evidence submitted at the hearing of the case, introduced by plaintiff and defendant; neither does counsel for plaintiff in error attach as an exhibit a brief of the evidence agreed on by counsel and approved by the court in his bill of exceptions. That the evidence submitted on the trial by defendant and plaintiff is absolutely necessary for the court to have a clear understanding of the errors complained about in the bill of exceptions."

It is plain in this case that there entered into the exercise of his...