
    Cobb et al. v. Hogue et al.
    
    1. One against whom an injunction is prayed may in his answer set up that he did the acts complained of as agent for another, and this is no cause for striking his answer.
    2. There was no abuse of discretion in refusing the injunction prayed for as to any of the defendants in the proceeding, notwithstanding some of them failed to answer.
    July 8, 1891.
    By two Justices.
    Injunction. Practice. Before Judge Gueury. Sumter county At chambers, March 23, 1891.
   Judgment, affirmed.

The plaintiffs brought their petition against Hogue, Jackson and Daniel, for injunction to restrai 'die closing of an alleged road or street, alleging that said defendants had no title thereto, and were insolvent. Hogue answered that the action he had taken in the matter was as agent for Mrs. Demley, who claimed perfect title to the property; and that she was not insolvent. Numerous other allegations, not necessary to bo here stated, were made in the petition and answer, and the evidence introduced in their support was conflicting. At the hearing the plaintiffs moved for an iniunction against Jackson and Daniel, they having made no appearance nor filed any answer; which motion was denied. They then moved to strike Hogue’s answer because it purported to be an answer as agent for Mrs. Demley, she not being a party to the petition. This motion also was overruled.

Simmons & Kimbrough and Hudson & Blalock, by brief, for plaintiffs.

Hinton, Cutts & Tyson, for defendants.  