
    Dunlap, Moncure & Co. for the use of C. H. Smith v. Benjamin Babb.
    Erbor. Immaterial. The court charged correctly as to the allowance of substantial damages, but charged that the plaintiff must necessarily recover at least nominal damages; but the jury having awarded substantial damages, the error, if any, was held to have been immaterial.
    PROM SHELBY.
    From the Law Court of Memphis, June Term,. 1868. James O. Peaece, J.
    This suit was brought to recover damages on an injunction bond, for the wrongful suing out of an injunction to restrain the removal of certain sugar. •The injunction was dissolved at chambers, and afterward the suit was dismissed by the complainants’ solicitor. The Circuit Judge charged the jury that the dissolution of the injunction and the dismissal of the suit, without more, entitled the defendant in that suit to nominal damages; but laid down the law correctly as to the allowance and ascertainment of substantial damages. The jury rendered a verdict for five hundred dollars of damages.
    Korteecht & Cbaet, for the plaintiffs.
    "Vance & AndeRSOn, for the defendant.
   Freeman, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court..

The judgment in this ease must be affirmed for two reasons:—

First, the point of error assigned in the charge of the Circuit Judge, whether well taken or not, which we do not decide, did not mislead the jury, or work any injury to the defendant; as it is evident that the jury have not proceeded upon the ground stated in the charge, but have found a verdict, not for nominal, but for substantial damages.

Second, upon careful examination of the record, we think there is testimony on which the verdict may well rest. At any rate, there is not such a preponderance of testimony against it as would authorize this court to reverse.

Affirm the judgment.  