
    CORNING & CO. et al. v. SIESEL & WOLF CO. et al.
    
    1. The record does not disclose any abuse of discretion in denying the prayer for an interlocutory injunction and the appointment of a receiver.
    2. This court will not, in any event, reverse a judgment refusing to restrain a sale of goods, when it appears that the plaintiff in error failed to obtain a supersedeas, and that the sale in question has already taken place.
    Argued June 14,
    — Decided July 14, 1897.
    Petition for injunction, etc. Before Judge Felton. Bibb county. January 19, 1897.
    
      Dessau, Bartlett & Ellis and Joseph Dried, for plaintiffs.
    
      Bacon, Miller & Brunson, for defendants.
   Lumpkin, P. J.

This case, upon its merits,'falls within the settled rule that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretion of a trial judge in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction or appoint a receiver, unless it plainly appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion.

Another reason for allowing the judgment complained of to stand is, that the sale sought to be restrained had actually taken place before the case was argued here. See Atlanta & Florida R. R. Co. v. Blanton 80 Ga. 563; Thornton v. Manchester Investment Co., 97 Ga. 342; Cranston v. Bank of the State of Georgia, Ibid. 406.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.  