
    Tift vs. Harrell.
    The title to land being in controversy and the evidence concerning it conflicting, one of the claimants filed his bill to enjoin the other from using the pine trees on the land for the manufacture of turpentine. It appeared that this use, while injurious to the timber, did not destroy the corpus of the estate. The evidence on the question of solvency was conflicting. The chancellor granted the injunction, but provided that it should be dissolved upon defendant’s giving bond to answer any verdict for damages which complainant might recover against him :
    
      Held, that there was no error in granting such conditional dissolution.
    Jackson, Chief Justice.
     