172 Ga. 792 | Ga. | 1931
The defendants in error filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error in this case, upon the ground that the questions sought to be adjudicated have become moot. Upon the filing of this petition this court, on May 11, 1931, issued a rule nisi calling upon the plaintiff in error to answer said petition and show cause why the bill of exceptions should not be dismissed as prayed. The plaintiff in error filed its answer to the rule nisi on May 21, 1931, as required. Upon consideration of the answer of the plaintiff in error, it appears that the only substantial matter involved in the adjudication was as to the control of the corporation; and it being admitted in the answer of the plaintiff in error that the prior preferred stockholders in the Nye Odorless Incinerator Corporation have now exercised their right, as conferred by the provisions of the charter of said corporation, and have elected a new list of officers to whom the control of the plaintiff in error has been surrendered (the default,of the management and former officers selected by the common stockholders being now admitted), the only real question raised by the bill of exceptions has therefore become moot. It is insisted in the answer that the question as to whether or not the court below erred in refusing a temporary injunction is not moot. In this opinion we can not concur. An inquiry under the circumstances presented by the answer into the propriety of the court’s action in refusing an interlocutory injunction, orín postponing the consideration of that subject, however
It is insisted in the answer of the plaintiff in error that the costs should be taxed against the defendants in error; but we see no reason why the usual rule should be varied in this case. It is therefore ordered that the bill of exceptions in the above-stated case be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff in error.
Writ of error dismissed.
