
    Mary L. Yates v. W. K. & J. W. Mead.
    Chancery Court. Interpleader. Injunction bond. • Breach.
    
    Where the owner of land enjoins its sale under execution, and in the same suit interpleads the holder of.a conflicting lien,'and pays into court a sufficient sum to satisfy either claim, and the final decree awarding the fund to the execution creditor is silent as to the injunction, the latter cannot recover on the injunction bond his expense incurred in the suit, .for, since the suit was maintained, in that it effected,a contest between the rival claimants, there was no breach of the bond.
    From the circuit court of Jackson county.
    Hon. S. H. Terral, Judge.
    Action upon an injunction'bond. W. E. & J. W. Mead purchased certain land, deriving title through successive conveyances from one Gf. M. Dees. Before they had completed the payment for the land, and, while their note for the deferred payment was outstánding in the hands of J. C. Strong, their immediate vendor, an execution was levied on the land in favor of Mrs. M. L. Yates, claiming to be assignee by subrogation of a judgment against G-. M. Dees and M. A. Dees, rendered and enrolled before G-. M. Dees parted with the title. W. E. and J. W. Mead thereupon filed their bill to enjoin the sale of the land under execution, and to interplead those having conflicting claims to the land. The balance due for the purchase of the land, being sufficient to pay the execution, was paid into court. Both Strong and Mrs. Fates were made defendants, and answered, asserting their claims, Strong making his answer a cross-bill. The controversy thus ai’ising between these defendants was tried by the chancery court, which decreed in favor of Strong. Qn appeal to this court, this decree was reversed and vacated, and decree entered in the supreme court awarding the fund in controversy to Mrs. Yates. See Yates v. Mead, 68 Miss., 787, where the facts are fully stated.
    
      Mrs. Yates thereupon brought this action against W. K. & J. W. Mead and the sureties on their injunction bond, to recover, as damages, her attorney’s feéé expended in defending the chancery suit.
    The cause was submitted to the circuit court for decision without a jury, and judgment rendered for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
    
      T. W. Brame, for appellant.
    The injunction bond is conditioned to pay all damages which the opposite parties might sustain by the suing out of the injunction if the same should be dissolved. The circuit court was of the opinion that the injunction was not dissolved because the decree did not specifically recite the dissolution. I think the injunction was dissolved, ffhe decree of the chancery court perpetually enjoined Mrs.- Yates, and decreed the money to Strong. This court ‘‘ reversed and vacated” the decree. The question may be resolved thus: Mrs. Yates was entitled to make her money out of the land. She was prevented by the appellees by their injunction. The bond was to pay damages to her if she successfully defended the suit. She did successfully defend, and in so doing incurred the damages claimed.
    
      Horace Bloomfield, for the appellees.
    The only effect of the decree of this court was to reverse the decree of the chancery court in so far as the fund in controversy was ordered to be paid to Strong.
   Campbell, C. J.,

delivered-the opinion of the court.

This case was decided correctly by the .circuit court. There was no breach of the condition of the bond, for the injunction was never .dissolved, formally or in effect. On the contrary, the suit of the appellees, in which the boud was given, was maintained so far as to result in a contest between Mrs. Yates and Strong as to which was entitled to the money brought into court by the appellees with their bill in that case. Yates v. Mead, 68 Miss., 787.

Affirmed.  