Opinion
20781.
ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1960.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 11, 1960.
Injunction. Haralson Superior Court. Before Judge Foster. October 27, 1959.
Robert Edwards, for plaintiffs in error.
Claude V. Driver, contra.
At the hearing on the interlocutory injunction in this case, the evidence was in conflict on the material issues involved. It was, therefore, not erroneous to dissolve the temporary restraining order theretofore granted and to refuse a further restraining order.
ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1960 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 11, 1960.
Ora F. Dozier and Elizabeth McQuaide brought suit against J. J. Mangham, Sr., in the Superior Court of Haralson County, Georgia, seeking to enjoin the sale of described real property under a power of sale contained in a security deed, executed by the plaintiffs to the defendant; to reform the security deed, and to reform a note signed by the plaintiffs. The note was executed on August 26, 1954, for $19,710.17 with interest. It was alleged that the note and security deed showed a maturity date of August 26, 1956, but that said date was not the maturity date discussed by the parties; and alleged that the plaintiffs agreed to pay $150 to $200 per month on said note.
It was further alleged that, after the parties had discussed and agreed upon the terms of the note and the security deed, the defendant told the plaintiffs that there was no need for them to wait around for the papers to be typed up, but that they could just sign them and he would complete them, which was just routine. They did sign the papers and, it is alleged, the defendant later filled in the maturity date of August 26, 1956, which was not the date agreed upon; that the true agreement was that they would pay $150 to $200 per month on the note until fully paid. It was also alleged that the note was not due, and that the defendant had no right to foreclose the security deed.
The prayers of the petition were that the sale under the power contained in the security deed be enjoined, and that the note and the security deed be reformed to show the true intentions of the parties.
A temporary restraining order was issued restraining the sale of the property. At the hearing on the interlocutory injunction, the restraining order was dissolved and a further restraining order denied. The exception here is to this judgment.
1. The judgment here excepted to dissolved the temporary restraining order theretofore granted, and refused a further restraining order. No judgment was rendered regarding the prayers for reformation. The only exception here is to the denial of the injunction. Therefore, no question is presented with reference to the prayers for reformation.
2. The evidence at the hearing on the interlocutory injunction was in sharp conflict on all material issues. The evidence of the plaintiffs tended to support the allegations of the petition. The defendant, on the other hand, testified positively that, when the plaintiffs signed the note and the security deed, they were both completed and included the maturity date of August 26, 1956; and that the plaintiffs read these documents in his office before they signed them. He further testified that they agreed that he would allow them two years on this note so that they could pay out certain other notes they owed him, and could have time to either sell the property or arrange other financing. There was further evidence by both sides, but the above is sufficient to show that the evidence was conflicting on the material issues in the case.
It has been the policy of the law in this State to place a wide discretion in the trial judge in the matter of granting or denying injunctions, and, unless abused, this discretion will not be disturbed. Code § 55-108; Holland Pecan Co. v. Brown, 177 Ga. 525 ( 170 S.E. 357); Polite v. Williams, 147 Ga. 820 ( 95 S.E. 674); Moon v. Clark, 192 Ga. 47 ( 14 S.E.2d 481).
In the instant case, since the evidence was in conflict, no abuse of discretion was shown, and the judgment of the court below dissolving the temporary restraining order and denying the interlocutory injunction was not erroneous.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.