
    McCLANAHAN’S ADM’R vs. WARE—JONES et al vs. SAME.
    [SBI IN EQUITY — INJUNCTION.]
    1. Temporary injunction; dissolution of. — Complainant obtained a temporary injunction, upon the ground of an alleged agreement, or understanding between him and the defendant, that a certain payment was to be made in Confederate money ; the defendant, in his answer, denied that there was any such agreement, or understanding, either express or implied ; and on motion, heard on bill and answer, the chancellor dis solved the injunction, — held, that in this, there was no reversible error
    Appeal from the Chancery Court of Shelby.
    Heard before Hon. J. Q. Loomis.
    The bill in this cause was filed on the 19th November, 1866, by J. M. McClanahan, against Horace Ware, the appellee, and sought to enjoin the defendant from proceeding to sell, under mortgage, certain stock held by the complainant in the Shelby Iron Works, an incorporated company lately engaged in the manufacture of iron, in the county of Shelby. The facts of the case are thus stated in the opinion of the chancellor, delivered on the motion to dissolve the injunction: “ Complainant, in connection with others, purchased of the defendant, in the early part of 1862, the property then known as the Shelby Iron Manufacturing'Company, consisting of large beds of iron ore, coal beds, lands, furnaces, machinery, shops*- and other buildings, for which they were to pay $150,000. This sum was to be divided into shares, and held as stock; each purchaser or stockholder was to execute his notes to defendant for his proportion of the stock, and to give a mortgage on his shares to secure the payment of his notes. The notes and mortgages were executed by all the parties except the complainant. It seems that some previous transactions had taken place between complainant and defendant; complainant held a judgment against the defendant amounting to some $12,000, which was to go in part payment of the amount due defendant. * * * * The company was formed, and the defendant became a party to its organization ; the business of manufacturing iron commenced, and was carried on until the spring of 1865, when the works were destroyed by the United States forces under Wilson. In April, 1865, complainant and defendant had a settlement. The judgment against the defendant was satisfied, and a note for the balance due, executed by the complainant, together with a mortgage on his stock to secure its payment. This settlement was made as of 1862, the date of the purchase from defendant; fifteen hundred dollars in United States currency has been paid on the note by the plaintiff, but failing to pay the balance, the defendant advertises to sell the stock under the mortgage, and to enjoin this sale, the bill is filed. The plaintiff sets up the foregoing facts, and further insists, that at the time of the purchase in 1862, it was understood that the valuation was upon the basis of Confederate States currency, and that the value of the property purchased, instead of being $150,000, was not more than $50,000 in gold at the time of the purchase, and that he has already paid the defendant the full value of the stock in the satisfaction of the judgment and the payment of the $1,500.” The allegation in the bill that it was understood that the consideration of the purchase was to be paid in Confederate currency, is explicitly denied in defendant’s answer, which is made under oath. The motion to dissolve the injunction was heard on bill and answer. The chancellor granted the motion and dissolved the injunction. The death of the complainant having been suggested, A. A. Sterrett, as administrator, with the will annexed of said complainant, was made party complainant. He appealed, and assigns the granting of said motion as error.
    The questions raised in the case of A. T. Jones et al v. Horace, Ware, being almost identical with this case, it was affirmed on the authority of this case.
    Morgan & Lapsley, for appellant.
    Alex. White, contra.
    
   A. J. WALKER, C. J.

The only ground upon which the temporary injunction in this case could have been placed, was the agreement or understanding as to the payment in Confederate money. Such agreement or understanding, whether express or implied from circumstances, is denied by the answer. — Schieble v. Bacho, January term, 1868. The chancellor committed no reversible error in dissolving the injunction. No other point pertaining to the regularity of the decree dissolving the injunction has been presented in argument, and it is prudent for us to abstain from expressing an opinion on any other point.

Affirmed.  