
    Hannah Ehrenreich, Appellant, v. Frank L. Froment, Respondent.
    
      Injunction — not continued where it will injure the party enjoined more than it will benefit the party applying f or it.
    
    An order denying a motion to continue a temporary' injunction restraining- a defendant, while altering a building located -on bis own land, from interfering ■ with the front wall of the plaintiff’s house, will not be disturbed by the Appellate Division where-it appears that the- reinstatement of the temporary injunction would cause vastly more injury to the defendant than benefit to the plaintiff.
    Appeal by the plaintiff, Hannah Ehrenfeich, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York.on the 28th day of June,. 1900, denying her motion to continue a. preliminary injunction theretofore granted in the action.
    
      Andrew F. Murray, for the appellant.
    
      David B. Ogden, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

This appeal, is from an order denying a motion to continué a .temporary injunction to restrain the defendant, an owner of real estate adjoining the plaintiff’s premises, from interfering-with the front wall of the plaintiff’s house while making alterations on the building erected on his own land. , .

- In view of the nature of the contest between .thesé parties, the doubt existing concerning the-true boundary line of their respective properties, and the conflict concerning acquiescence in the acts of the defendant, which are made the basis of the plaintiff’s cause of action, we think their rights- should not be determined upon affidavits, but only after a full trial of the cause. It may be said, in addition, that it is quite plain that the reinstatement of the temporary injunction vacated by the order appealed from would cause vastly more injury to the defendant than benefit to the plaintiff,, and under such circumstances and in such a case the general rule referred to in Brower v. Williams (44 App. Div. 340) applies. In reaching this conclusion, we wish it to be distinctly understood that • we express no opinion whatever respecting the merits of the ease, either as to the disputed questions of fact or the propositibns of law involved in the action.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O’Brien, Ingraham and Hatch, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  