47 S.E.2d 326 | Ga. | 1948
An abuse of discretion is not shown in the grant of the interlocutory injunction in this case.
A temporary restraining order was granted and a rule nisi issued. The defendant filed general and special demurrers to the petition, and an answer, in which he denied the substantial allegations of the petition. He further alleged in his answer that the petitioner was indebted to him in a stated sum for money had and received, and a stated sum as rent of the property. At the hearing the trial judge declined to rule on the demurrers, and after the introduction of evidence passed an order temporarily restraining the defendant from alienating or changing the status of the property and interfering with the possession of the property by the petitioner. The order further provided that the petitioner's possession was conditioned upon her paying into court the sum of $175 per month, beginning within ten days from the date of the order. The exception here is to the granting of the interlocutory injunction.
Counsel for the plaintiff in error contend in their brief that the petition failed to set forth a cause of action for any relief, and that the trial court should have heard and *439
sustained the demurrers. Whether or not the better practice would be to rule upon demurrers at the hearing for interlocutory injunction, the court is not compelled to do so. Vance v.Vogel,
"The grant or denial of a temporary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the judge, according to the circumstances of each case (Code, § 55-108); and where the evidence is conflicting, his decision will not be reversed, unless it is apparent that he has abused the discretion which the law gives him." Jones v. Lanier Development Co.,
Judgment affirmed, with direction. All the Justices concur,except Wyatt, J., who took no part in the consideration ordecision of this case.