
    Doolittle vs. The East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company et al.
    
    On the hearing of an application for injunction to prevent the erection, by railroad companies, of a bridge on a street in a city across their tracks, the affidavits' being conflicting, especially upon the question whether or not damage would accrue to the complainant by such erection, the chancellor did right t'o refuse the injunction, and there was no abuse of discretion in so refusing.
    July 12, 1888.
    Injunction. Before Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Ful-' ton superior court. March term, 1888.
    Report unnecessary.
    J. H. Lumpkin, for plaintiff.
    Bacon & Ruthereord, Mynatt & Carter, Calhoun, King & Spalding, J. B Goodwin and J. T. Pendleton, for defendants.
   Blandford, Justice.

This was a bill to enjoin the defendants from erecting a 'bridge across the railroad upon a certain street in the city of Atlanta. At the hearing before the chancellor, many •affidavits were submitted. These affidavits were conflicting, especially upon the question of whether or not damage would accrue to the complainant from the erection of the bridge. The chancellor, under the circumstances, refused to grant an injunction. We think the chancellor did right, and that there was no abuse of his discretion in refusing the injunction. ^

Judgment affirmed.  