History
  • No items yet
midpage
Abercrombie v. Sims
150 Ga. 739
Ga.
1920
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Under the allegations of the petition the plaintiffs are without a complete and adequate remedy at law, and the case as made is one cognizable in a court of equity, where complete equitable relief can be administered. Compare the cases of Ford v. Finney, 35 Ga. 258, and Morgan v. Argard, 148 Ga. 123 (95 S. E. 986).

2. Where, as in the hill of exceptions in this case, one of the assignments of error is that the judge erred in granting an interlocutory injunction, and the evidence on which the injunction was largely, if not entirely, based was documentary, being copies of lengthy affidavits set out in full, except the formal part, without any eifort to brief them as required, and such evidence contains immaterial and unnecessary portions of the affidavits and exhibits, the evidence so incorporated will not be considered. The motion to dismiss the writ of error will be denied, but the judgment granting an interlocutory injunction will he affirmed. Baker v. Nix, 150 Ga. 679 (104 S. E. 625), and cases cited. This ruling makes it unnecessary to determine whether certain evidence was admissible.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except





Dissenting Opinion

Fish, C. J., and Beck, P. J.,

who dissent as to the ruling in the first headnote, and to the judgment, they being of the opinion that the petition is subject to the general demurrer.

Holbrook & Corbett and Astor Merritt, for plaintiffs in error. George P. Whitman, contra.

Case Details

Case Name: Abercrombie v. Sims
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Dec 16, 1920
Citation: 150 Ga. 739
Docket Number: No. 1856
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.