
    Tutt v. The Sand Hills Hotel Company et al.
    
    The material findings of the jury were warranted by the evidence, and the decree, as an equitable result, was warranted by the findings, in so far as it was rested on them; and in so far as it was rested on the discretionary power of the court, though open to question, involved no manifest abuse of such discretion. No error was committed in the progress of the trial, or in any of the various rulings made by the court, for which a new trial should be ordered. The points made being exceedingly numerous, while they have been separately considered in the light of the whole record, are overruled generally, none of them being sufficient to require another trial of the case or any modification of the decree.
    August 29, 1894.
    Equitable petition, etc. Before Judge Roney. Richmond superior court. April term, 1893.
    Frank H. Miller, William K. Miller and Boykin Wright, for plaintiff. J. R. Lamar, Harper & Brother and W. T. Davidson, for defendants.
   Judgment affirmed.  