
    Fish, et al. v. South, et al.
    (Decided November 11, 1919.)
    Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.
    Appeal and Error — When Opinion by One Member of Court May Be Adopted as Opinion of Court. — When the sole relief sought by an action is a permanent injunction, and a judge of this court on a motion to dissolve .the injunction granted by a circuit judge, considers every question presented by the record and renders an opinion which is concurred in by the whole court, on final appeal, after preparation of the case upon its merits, no new questions being presented, the opinion delivered by a member of the court in which all members concur, may be adopted as the opinion of the court.
    M. M. LOGAN, ELI BROWN and BASIL RICHARDSON for appellants.
    c. u. Mcelroy, elwood Hamilton and j. h, polsgrove for appellees.
   Opinion op the Court by

Judge Sampson

Affirming.

This cause was before a judge of this court on a motion to dissolve an injunction, granted by the-judge of the Franklin circuit court to the appellees, J. G. South, et al., restraining appellants, C. A. Fish, et al., from asserting oreclaiming any right or title to the offices as members of the State Board of Health, and from interfering with South, et al., in their offices as members of the State Board of Health, and from taking custody of the rooms, or buildings occupied by the State Board of Health, or books, records, papers, documents, apparatus, or any instrumentalities belonging or pertaining to said board, and also enjoining and restraining appellants from attempting to perform or performing any duties or functions of the said board of health, or from organizing or attempting to organize any bureau, commission or department of the' State Board of Health, and the whole court sitting, considering the exact record now presented, except for extended and amplified briefs, denied the motion and continued the injunction in full force. The opinion delivered then will be found in 181 Ky. 349. The case was then prepared upon its merits, submitted in the Franklin circuit court, and judgment entered granting a perpetual injunction. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

As there are no new questions, and as the whole court carefully considered each question now presented by this appeal on the motion to dissolve the injunction, we shall here adopt the opinion to which we have referred, delivered on September 20, 1918, in which the whole court concurred, as the opinion on this appeal. This renders it unnecessary for us to discuss the questions involved.

Judgment affirmed.  