
    Thrasher v. Holmes et al.
    
    There being no allegation nor proof of insolvency as to the defendant against whom the main relief is prayed, and the evidence being conflicting, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction, thus leaving the rights of the parties to be determined by a jury at the final hearing under the evidence then submitted, and under proper instructions from the court as to the law applicable.
    July 26, 1893.
   Judgment affirmed.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Harris. Troup county. At chambers, April 25, 1893.

J. P. Daniel and J. H. Lumpkin, for plaintiff.

A. A. Manning and T. II. Whitaker, for defendants.  