25 Ga. 369 | Ga. | 1858
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
It is not necessary to decide the second point taken in the motion to reinstate, but we are not sure that the Court ought not to have allowed the copies to have been read. They were not only admitted, in the answers, to be true copies, but the defendants manifestly had them in possession; they annexed copies to their cross bill, they conveyed the title on which they expected to sustain the action? at law enjoined, theirs was the proper custody, and if they preferred that the originals should be used, they could have produced them.
It appears no where in the record as a fact, that the deeds were produced on the former trial. It is assumed as a fact in ■the motion, but the Court may have refused the motion on that ground, because the assumption was wrong, and not in accordance with the facts.
The call in the bill for the production of the deeds was sufficient as a foundation for the motion made in the cause.
It is our opinion, therefore, that the presiding Judge in the Court below erred in refusing the motion to reinstate the cause.
Judgment reversed,