
    James C. Johnson, plaintiff in error, vs. John J. Allen, defendant in error.
    The judgment of the Court in continuing or dissolving an injunction, on the coining in of an answer, will not be controlled, except in a case of manifest abuse of discretion.
    In Equity. In Bibb Superior Court. Motion to Dissolve Injunction. Decided by Judge Cole. At Chambers. October, 1866.
    In September, 1866, Johnson, the plaintiff in error, filed his bill against Allen, alleging that Allen was guardian of the complainant’s wife, and, as such, largely indebted to the complainant in right of his wife; that the parties submitted the matter to arbitrators, who, in August, 1866, awarded to the complainant $3.547.53; that complainant was only awaiting the sitting of the Superior Court to have the award entered and made the judgment of said Court; that the securities to the bond of the defendant as guardian were insolvent ; and that defendant, for the purpose of defrauding complainant and to prevent him from realizing the award, was, as complainant was informed and believed, attempting to sell and dispose of his plantation, crops, and stock, the same being about his entire property, and that he would sue ceed in this fraudulent design if not restrained by a Court of Equity.
    The bill prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant ‘•from selling or disposing of his property or any part thereof” until the further order of the Court.
    The injunction was granted.
    The defendant answered the bill, and moved to dissolve the injunction.
    The answer admitted the rendering of the award, but alleged that it was fraudulent, specifying in what the fraud consisted, and praying that the award be set aside. It denied that the defendant’s real indebtedness to complainant was more than $1,100.00. It admitted that early in the year, and up to about the first of March, the defendant had offered his property for sale, but with the sole and avowed view of paying all his debts, this one included, if the amount thereof could be agreed upon. It stated that since about the first of March, the intention to sell had been abandoned ; and that since the submission to' arbitration, the defendant had made no offer of sale, nor had such intention.
    The Judge dissolved the inj unction, holding that there was no equity in the bill, or if any, that it had been sworn off by the answer.
    This is complained of as error.
    Poe, for plaintiff in error.
    Whittle, for defendant.
   Walker, J.

The judgment in this case is affirmed, because there is no such abuse of the discretion of the Court below as to require this Court to interfere. ■ The continuing or dissolving an injunction, on the coming in of the answer, is for the sound discretion of the Court below, and this Court will not control this exercise of this discretion, except in a case of manifest abuse.

Judgment affirmed.  