
    HEILBRON v. LAST CHANCE W. D. CO.
    No. 11,140;
    January 29, 1886.
    9 Pac. 456.
    Nonsuit.—Where the Evidence Given on a Trial Tends to Sustain the allegations of the complaint concerning the acts complained of, it is error to grant a nonsuit.
    Injunction—Evidence.—In an Action to Eestrain Certain Acts of a Corporation arising from constructing a dam, where an officer of the corporation was asked on the trial: “Unless there is an injunction issued in this case forbidding the corporation, through its agents, from doing this act, you, as long as you are agent of the corporation, will continue to do it when you think it necessary to do it, and to the advantage of the corporation”—the refusal of the court to allow such question is error.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, County of Tulare.
    
      Brown & Daggett and D. S. Terry for appellant; Atwell & Bradley for respondent.,
   MYRICK, J.-

The evidence given on the trial tended to show that officers and agents of the defendant were engaged in constructing a dam for the defendant, and in such construction committed some of the acts complained of. That being the case, the court erred in granting a nonsuit. The court sustained an objection to the following question propounded to one of the officers:

“Question. And unless there is an injunction issued in this case forbidding the corporation, through its agents, from doing this act, you, as long as you are agent of the corporation, will continue to do it when you think it necessary to do it, and to the advantage of the corporation %' ’

The ruling was error.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

We concur: Morrison, C. J.; Thornton, J.  