
    McPhee vs. Veal.
    1. The sworn bill and answer being conflicting, and neither exhibiting written title to the lot which formed the subject-matter of the controversy, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to enjoin its sale under a fi. fa.
    
    2. Even if the complainant had shown a better title than the defendant in ft. fa., an injunction should not have been granted to stop a sale under an execution against the defendant in fi. fa. for laying curbing and pavement on the sidewalk in front of the property in dispute, the ground of equity being that complainant had brought suit against the defendant for the land, that the city had issued theji./a., and complainant had tried to buy it by offering the principal and interest, but the marshal refused to transfer it to him, but sold and transferred it to another, who was colluding with the defendant- infi. fa. and pressing the.sale. If the'complainant owned the lot, he should have paid the amount due for paving its sidewalk; if he did not own it, he had no interest in it, nor in the debt or lien thereon; and he did not need a transfer to protect his rights.
    March 23,1886.
    Tax. Title. Levy and -Sale. Injunction. Before Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Fulton Superior Court. September Term, 1885.
    Reported in the decision.
    Reed, Reinhardt & O’Neil, for plaintiff in error.
    Candler, Thomson <fc Candler, for defendant.
   Jackson, Chief Justice.

McPhee applied by a’ bill in. equity for'an injunction, against Thomas E. Yeal, restraining’him from selling a certain lot in the'City of Atlanta, Under an execution against W. S. Yeal for laying curbing and pavement in front of said lot, the said execution having been transferred to said Thomas E. Veal by the city. Its refusal is the error assigned.

The bill alleges that complainant is suing, by another bill, W. S. Yeal for this lot, his possession being a cloud on his title thereto, and pending this suit the levy is made; that he tried to buy th eft. fa,, from -the city by paying the marshal principal and'interest if he would transfer to him; -that he would not, at fh'e instance of W. S. Veal, but sold and tranferred to Thomas E. Yeal, who is 'now pressing the'sale in collusion with W. S. Yeal, and prays the injunction until the suit he has pending for the land has been tried. The bill exhibits no title-papers of any sort, nor does it exhibit even the bill filed and pending against W. S. Yeal. The answer denies that -McPhee haé any title to the lot and all collusion.

So that, on the bill swearing one way and the answer the other, neither setting up or exhibiting written title, the chancellor 'did -not abusé his discretion in refusing the injunction,.especially as the defendant in execution, W. S. Yeal, was in possession.

But even if the complainant had shown the better-title, the injunction should have been refused. He' had-no right to demand and constrain a transfer of the fi. fa. to him. If he was confident that the land was his, and if’ his title was good to it, he ought to pay the debt for paying the front of it; if the title 'was not in him, but in W.. S. Yeal, he had no interest at all in it, or in -the debtor lien of the fi. fa. upon it. If it was his lot, when he paid thefi.fa. and the marshal receipted it, he got all he needed without a transfer; if it was not his lot', he had nó interest in the sale of it and no righi to intermeddle with it at all. He could not, on a sort of chance to win in a suit, have the writ of injunction to stop its sale under lien execution.

In any view, he had no equity to the writ.

Judgment affirmed.  