
    WOFFORD OIL COMPANY OF GEORGIA v. HOUCK et al.
    
    No. 7379.
    February 12, 1930.
    
      O. G. Hancock, for plaintiff in error. T. L. Slappey, contra.
   Hines, J.

Under conflicting evidence the court did not err in granting’ an interlocutory injunction. The defendant was undertaking to dismantle a filling-station by removing from the premises upon which it was erected certain underground tanks which had been installed in 1921, and claimed the right to do so under a contract dated January 11, 1929, which did not refer to tanks already installed, but which contemplated. the installation oí tanks under said contract; and it not being made clear irom the evidence that the defendant was justified in dismantling this station under said contract, we can not hold as a matter of law that an injunction should have been denied. Tt does not appear that the judge failed to exercise his discretion in this matter.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.  