
    Comer v. Comer.
    The controversy being as to whether there is a tenancy in common existing between the parties, and there being controverted facts on which the evidence is conflicting, and also difficult questions of law, there was no error in granting the injunction and appointing a receiver and thus preserving and protecting the property until the respective rights of the parties can, after a full investigation, be ascertained' and fixed by final decree. The property consisting entirely of realty and income derived therefrom, the receiver was rightly directed to take possession of all the realty, it being within the power of the court by proper interlocutory orders to provide that he pay over to the defendant from time to time such sums, not exceeding one half of the income, as she is. beyond dispute entitled to receive.
    June 26, 1893.
    Petition for injunction and receiver. Before Judge Bartlett. Bibb county. April 22, 1893.
    Hardeman, Davis & Turner, for plaintiff' in error.
    Lanier, Anderson & Anderson, M. W. Harris and Dessau & Hodges, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  