
    J. W. Armstrong, administrator, et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. John B. Lewis, defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    Injunction — Practice in Supreme Court. — Where an injunction was refused by the Chancellor, and the case, by writ of error, was carried to the Supreme Court and the judgment reversed, and defendants then moved before the Chancellor to dissolve the injunction, which motion was overruled, such decision cannot be carried by bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court, within ten days, under the Act of October 28th, 18^0. (R.)
    Injunction. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court. January Term, 1873.
    When this case was called, counsel for defendants moved to dismiss the writ of error, upon the ground that the bill of exceptions showed the following facts: That on August 27th, 1872, the Chancellor had refused an injunction on the bill presented to him by complainant; that this decision was carried by writ of error, to the July term, 1872, of the Supreme Court where if was reversed; that on March 1st, 1873, a motion was made to dissolve said injunction, and «overruled by the Chancellor, to which decision a bill of exceptions was certified, on the 5th day of the same month; that this is the case now'before the Court for consideration.
    *Upon the statement by the Chief Justice that it was the unanimous opinion of the Court that the motion should be sustained, counsel for plaintiffs in error withdrew the record.
    Joseph Armstrong; Vason & Davis, for plaintiffs in error.
    W. A. Hawkins ; Poe, Hall & Poe, for defendant.
    
      
      Bill of Exceptions — Certification—Waiver—Jurisdiction.—“A ‘fast’ bill of exceptions to the refusal of an injunction must be certified within twenty days from the rendition of the decision. If not so certified, the defect cannot be cured by certificate of the chancellor that he was absent from home until the day of the signing, nor can' a waiver give this court jurisdiction to try the case.” Sewell v. Edmonston, 66 Ga. 354, citing principal case; Ency. Dig. Ga. Rep., vol. 5, p. 395.
    
    
      
      injunction — Practice in Supreme Court. — To the ruling that a writ of error on the denial of a motion to dissolve an injunction cannot be heard in the supreme court in the speedy manner provided by the act of Oct. 28, 1870, the principal case is cited in Smith v. Willis, 107 Ga. 793, 33 S. E. Rep. 667; Kaufman v. Ferst, 55 Ga. 353; Smith v. Willis, 105 Ga. 840, 32 S. E. Rep. 92.
    
     