
    John Rodahan, et al., plaintiff in error, vs. W. W. Driver, et al., defendants in error.
    Where an injunetlonhas been granted to stay the collection of a judgment at law on the ground, that the judgment was for too much, and the defendant admits by his answer that a mistake was made, and credits his debt for the amount, but swears positively that the balance is justly due, the injunction will be dissolved, there being no special reason assigned why it should be retained till the hearing-.
    In Equity, in Carroll Superior Court. Decision by Judge Hammond, at chambers, on a motion to dissolve an injunc tion.
    This was a bill filed by John Rodahan and Charles Rodahan, against W. W. Driver and George W. Driver, executors of the last will and testament of John Driver, deceased.
    The bill states that complainants bought, at the sale made by defendants, of their testator’s estate, a quantity of corn, fodder and hogs; that they afterwards sent their wagons for the articles bought, and did not themselves go and superintend the weighing of the hogs and fodder, and the measuring of the corn, but trusted to and relied upon th.e honesty of defendants in having the same carefully weighed and measured, and thus relying, they subsequently executed and delivered their notes for the amount as made out and represented to the Court, by defendants. The amount thus returned by defendants, was $604 81, for which they gave small notes of $30. That upon said notes becoming due, complainants were sued thereon in a Justice Court, and not having or not knowing that they had, any defence, they permitted judgment to go against them, and executions have been issued thereon.
    The hill further states, that since the rendition of said judgments, complainants have ascertained that by the fraud or mistake of defendants in weighing and measuring said hogs, fodder and corn, they were charged with a much larger sum than was in truth due, and that said notes andthejudgments founded thereon, are erroneous, and they claim, that the proper deduction should be made, and until there is a proper accounting and settlement of this matter, that said judgments and executions be enjoined.
    The amount of the alleged error or mistake, is alleged to be some thirty or forty dollars.
    The defendants answered the bill, and' admitted the facts therein stated, as to the purchase of the property by complainants ; the giving the notes, and the judgments and executions obtained thereon. .But they deny that there was any mistake or fraud in the weighing and measuring of the corn, fodder and hogs; that there were other articles bought; that one of the complainants made the calculation of the aggregate amount of their purchases, and that the mistake occurred in the computation then made, and not in the measuring or weighing; that they never heard of any dissatisfaction or mistake or fraud, until the tiling of this bill, and that as soon as they heard of the same, the matter was examined, and they discovered that there was a mistake of $13 81J, against the complainants, and they corrected the same at once, by giving credit for that amount on the fi. fas.
    
    Upon the coming in of the answers, defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, on the ground that all the equity of the bill was sworn off by the answer.
    Complainants resisted this motion, on the grounds, that defendants, in their answer, admitted a mistake, and then set up, that they had corrected the same since the injunction was issued, thereby taking it upon themselves to act in' the matter, after they were enjoined, and that the exhibits to the answers were defective, showing only a part of a transcript of a record.
    The Court sustained the motion, and dissolved the injunction.
    And Counsel for complainants excepted.
    G. J. Wright, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Merrell, represented by Bleckley, for defendants in error.
   By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

We think the Court right in dissolving the injunction in this case. Indeed it ought never to have been granted, except as to the amount of the mistake claimed by the defendants.

The plaintiffs in the judgments, having credited their debt with the amount of the mistake, which they admit, as they should have done, and swore positively that that is all to which defendants are entitled; the equity of the bill is gone, so far as the injunction is concerned, and Wm. Rodahan must look to the final hearing for the balance which he claims. He states no special reason why he cannot get adequate redress in this way.

Judgment affirmed.  