Hallett, Seaver & Burbank vs. Blain & Harris. *HALLETT, SEAVER & BURBANK, plaintiffs in error, vs. BLAIN & HARRIS, defendants in error. Where proceedings had before a justice of the peace are brought up for review by writ of certiorari, and no question of fact is involved, it is the duty of the superior court to render a final judgment in the case, without sending it back to the lower tribunal. WARNER, Chief Justice. SQUIRE UNDERWOOD, plaintiff in error, vs. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, defendant in error. GEORGE FAVER, plaintiff in error, vs. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, defendant in error. FIELDS, WITHERSPOON & COMPANY, plaintiffs in error, vs. DEMORE & COMPANY, defendants in error. The verdicts in these cases are sustained by the testimony. DUDLEY P. JACKSON, plaintiff in error, vs. Gilbert M. BYNE, defendant in error. The granting of an injunction without notice to the party sought to be en joined, is in violation of section 3211 of the Code. WARNER, Chief Justice. JOHN T. BURKHALTER, plaintiff in error, vs. JOHN W. BAKER, defendant in error. Where upon the trial of a possessory warrant, the right to the possession of the property turned exclusively upon the evidence, and no error of law is complained of, the decision of the magistrate will not be reversed. WARNER, Chief Justice. *No reports or opinions are published in this and the following cases, in accordance with the provisions of act of March 2d, 1875. (R.) Garvin vs. Whelchel. A. L. GARVIN, executor, plaintiff in error, vs. A. M. WHELCHEL, defendant in error. Contracts entered into after June 1st, 1869, though in renewal of obligations bearing dates anterior thereto, are not within the provisions of the limitation act of 1869. WARNER, Chief Justice. JOSEPH F. DOUGLASS et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. PHILIP FITZGERALD, defendant in error. Where the facts are complicated, and the appointment of a receiver and granting of an injunction will protect the rights of the respective parties, the discretion of the chancellor will not be controlled. WARNER, Chief Justice. MARTHA M. GIRARDEY et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. ANDREW M. MOORE et al., defendants in error. W. A. GREGORY, plaintiff in error, vs. WILLIAM A. RAWSON, defendant in error. This court will not interfere to control the discretion of the chancellor in granting, or refusing to grant, injunctions, when no rule of law or well established principle of equity has been violated. WARNER, Chief Justice. The Summerville, etc., Company vs. The Augusta, etc., Company. THE SUMMERVILLE MACADAMIzed, Graded, or Plank ROAD COMPANY, plaintiff in error, vs. THE AUGUSTA LAND COMPANY, defendant in error. On an application for an injunction to restrain trespass, this court will not control the discretion of the court below in refusing such injunction if the defendants are fully able to respond in damages; and if the bill be retained for a full hearing, on the trial before the court and jury, all the facts can be fully investigated, damages for the past estimated and recovered, and a perpetual injunction be decreed for the future, if on such full hearing such decree should be found to be equitable and just. JACKSON, Judge. FREDERICK W. PIKE et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. THOMAS D. DOTTERER, trustee, et al., defendants in error. The court having expressed its opinion in its charge upon the facts of this case, a new trial is ordered. WARNER, Chief Justice. S. W. MAYS, executor, et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. T. N. KILLEN, defendant in error. To authorize an executor to recover in ejectment, he must introduce the will and not the letters testamentary only: Sorrell vs. Ham, 9th Georgia Reports, 55. JACKSON, Judge. THOMAS D. SPEER et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. O. P. MERRYMAN & COMPANY, defendants in error. 1. Where a bill of exceptions is signed neither by the plaintiffs in error nor their counsel, the writ of error will be dismissed. (R.) 2. Nor can this defect be cured by a proposition from counsel to sign the bill of exceptions after it has reached this court. (R.) Practice in the Supreme Court. July Term, 1876. When this case was called, counsel for defendant moved to dismiss the writ of error because the bill of exceptions as certified by the judge and the clerk, was signed by no one. Counsel for plaintiffs in error, to cure this omission, proposed to sign either their own names or the names of the counsel who appeared in the record to have represented the case in the court 429 |