
    CHICAGO, KALAMAZOO & SAGINAW RAILWAY CO. v. KALAMAZOO CIRCUIT JUDGE.
    Preliminary Injunction—Dissolution—Discretion.
    The coming in of a sworn answer fully meeting the allegations of the hill does not deprive the court of all discretion to refuse dissolution of a preliminary injunction.
    Mandamus by the Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway Company and others to compel John W. Adams, circuit judge of Kalamazoo county,to dissolve a preliminary injunction.
    Submitted June 7, 1904.
    (Calendar No. 20,516.)
    Writ denied November 29, 1904.
    
      E. M. Irish and W. G. Hoivard, for relators.
    
      Dallas Boudeman and Taggart, Denison & Wilson, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This is an application for mandamus requiring the respondent to vacate a preliminary injunction. The relator has argued his case at great length and very forcibly, but the argument proceeds upon the theory that the answer fully meets the charges in the complainant’s bill, and that the circuit judge should have accepted the answer as true. While it is undoubtedly true that as a general rule a court will, upon the coming in of a sworn answer fully meeting the allegations .of the bill of complaint, dissolve a preliminary injunction, this rule is not so rigid as to deny any discretion in the court. 2 High on Injunctions (3d Ed.), § 1508.

We are not able to say that there was a clear abuse of discretion in maintaining the injunction in the present case until the hearing.

The writ is denied.  