
    Born v. The Loflin & Rand Powder Company.
    The evidence being conflicting on the question whether the erection of buildings for storage of gunpowder, dynamite and other explosives of a dangerous character, near the land of plaintiffs, would be dangerous or damaging to them or their property, refusal of a temporary injunction and leaving the question for the determination of a jury was not error.
    January 8, 1890.
    Petition for injunction. Before Judge Maddox. Walker county. At chambers, July 6, 1889.
    Reported in the decision.
    C. P. Goree, Payne & Walker and R. M. W. Glenn, for plaintiffs.
    P. A. Brawner and Dodson & Moon, for defendant.
   Simmons, Justice.

This was an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants in error from erecting buildings for the storage of gunpowder, dynamite and other explosives of a dangerous character near the land of the plaintiffs. The evidence being conflicting as to the danger and damage to the plaintiffs, the trial judge refused a temporary injunction, preferring, we suppose, that the question of fact be passed upon by the jury. We do not think he abused his discretion in refusing a temporary injunction. It being a question of fact as to -whether the buildings would be dangerous and whether the plaintiffs’ property would be damaged by the erection thereof, and the evidence before the trial judge being conflicting, we do not think he erred in leaving the question for the determination of the jury at the final trial.

Judgment affirmed.  