
    Lansley v. Nietert et al.
    
    Injunction: attorneys’ fees for defending : recovery in action on bond. (Thomas v. MeDaneld, 77 Iowa, 299, followed.)
    
    
      Appeal from Cedar Rapids Superior Court. — Hon. JohnT. Stoneman, Judge,
    Filed, June 5, 1889.
    This is an action upon an injunction bond. There was a trial by the court and a judgment for the plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
    
      Davis & Voris, for appellants.
    
      Richel & Crocker, for appellee.
   Rothrook, J.

The amount in controversy as shown by the petition and injunction bond, which is made x>art of the petition, does not exceed one hundred dollars, and the case comes to us upon a certificate of the trial judge as provided by statute. This certificate sets out the facts at great length. It is not necessary to reproduce the facts in this opinion. It js sufficient to say that we are unable to discover any substantial difference between the question certified|in this case and that reviewed in the case of Thomas v. McDaneld, 77 Iowa, 299. We held in that case that under the facts found by the court the plaintiff was entitled to recover attorney’s fees upon the injunction bond. Following that case the judgment in the case at bar will be ' Affirmed.  