
    Beckwith et al. vs. Blanchard et al.
    
    Where, on á second application for injunction on the same bill, after a refusal of injunction on the first application has been acquiesced in until too late for a writ of error, the only new fact incorporated by amendment in the bill is one which was known to the complainant when the bill was first brought, and the chancellor denies the injunction, his discretion will not be controlled unless flagrantly abused.
    March 3, 1888.
    Injunction. Before Judge Eort. Schley County. At Chambers, February 4,1888.
    Reported in the decision.
    E. F. Hinton ; W. H. McCrary ; C. B. Hudson, for plaintiffs in error.
    E. A. Hawkins, for defendants.
   Bleckley, Chief Justice.

This was a second application for an injunction. The first had been refused too long to bring it to this court. When the second was made, it was upon an amendment to the bill which simply alleged an additional fact; that is, that one of the complainants had not been served personally with a rule to foreclose a mortgage. That fact was as well known when the first injunction was applied for as when the second was applied for; and we think that the judge did not err in failing to vary his decision upon the application by reason of this one additional fact; because it might have been and should have been alleged when the first application was made.

Judgment affirmed.  