Atkinson, Justice.

1. A proceeding for contempt in violation of a mandamus absolute is so connected with the mandamus that a writ of error to review a judgment therein should be treated as a case involving an extraordinary remedy within the constitutional provision conferring jurisdiction upon this court. Ficklen v. Washington, 141 Ga. 441 (81 S. E. *94 123); Odom v. McDilda, 155 Ga. 688 (117 S. E. 649); Smith v. Lott, 156 Ga. 590 (119 S. E. 400, 30 A. L. R. 145); Tomlin v. Rome Stove & Range Co., 183 Ga. 183 (187 S. E. 879); Powell v. Powell, 200 Ga. 379 (37 S. E. 2d, 191); Wagner v. Commercial Printers, 203 Ga. 1 (45 S. E. 2d, 205).

No. 15988. November 14, 1947.

2. Under the doctrine of estoppel by judgment, a mandamus order requiring the defendants to issue to the plaintiff a permit to operate taxicabs, which on review by this court was affirmed, is conclusive against the defendants in a subsequent proceeding for contempt. Powell v. Powell, 200 Ga. 379 (2), supra.

3. Under the pleadings and evidence, which showed that the defendants refused to issue “a permit to operate taxicabs,” but that they by adoption of a resolution limited the plaintiff to the operation of only four taxicabs, the trial court abused its discretion in holding that the defendants had purged themselves of contempt.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. *95 ■ F. C. Shackelford, John L. Green, and James Barrow, for plaintiff. Rupert A. Brown, Carlisle Cobb, and Abit Nix, for defendants.