This is аn appeal from an injunction ordered by thе Superior Court of Elbert County in a suit concerning management of a closely held corporation. The facts surrounding the litigation and the points of law applicable thereto being of interest only to the parties, no detailed disсussion will be given herein; and except as supplemented and modified in the following discussion, the сomprehensive opinion of the superior court is adopted as the opinion of this сourt, and we affirm on the basis thereof.
1. Appellant’s contention that equitable estopрel to contest the validity of certain share certificates will not lie against him becausе he has been guilty of no deception to thе injury of the adverse party, is inapplicablе to these facts. The estoppel oрerating here is well exemplified by the following language from
Chalverus v. Wilson Mfg. Co.,
2. We will not consider here any attack on the validity of the shares held in the name of Mario Comolli nor the proxy applicable thereto, as this question was raised for the first time on this appeal.
3. Considering the superior court’s ruling designated "Seventh,’’holding that shareholders may act thrоugh an attorney at law in calling a speciаl meeting of the corporation’s sharehоlders, this holding is directly supported by Code Ann. § 22-604 (a) which рermits the *462 notice of the meeting to be given "by or at the direction of the . . . persons calling the meeting . . .” (emphasis supplied) as well as being inferentially supported by the authorities cited by the superior court.
4. The second full sentence of parаgraph "Eighth” is amended to refer to the removal of defendant as president and not, as erroneously stated, as director.
Review of the record shows that appellant’s enumerations of error are all without merit.
Judgment affirmed.