Russell, O. J.
Under the pleadings and. the evidence in this ease, the trial judge did not err in granting an interlocutory injunction.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur..
Each of the defendants demurred and answered. In the answer of the plaintiff in error it is denied that the $800 was loaned to the Avidow for the purpose of paying her personal pre-existing debts, or Avas so used. It .is admitted that the security deed was made for the purpose of better securing a note given to defendant by the AvidoAv, but defendant denies that this note was a personal debt of Mrs. Sims. It is further set up that the power of sale contained in the deed provides for a public sale; and while defendant has urged upon Mrs. Sims the importance of and its desire for a settlement of the indebtedness secured by the deed, no steps have been taken to enforce it by sale under the power or otherwise. Defendant says, hoAArever, that plaintiffs have shown no legal reason why enforcement of its rights under said conveyance should be interfered with by the court; that there is a misjoinder of parties defendant; and that the petition should be dismissed. Dpon the hearing the plaintiff introduced in evidence her affidavit, in part as follows: “As to the deed giAren to the First National Bank, it was likewise not given for the purpose of securing maintenance and support for myself and minor children. It was given mainly for better securing a preexisting debt of mine due to said bank, for the sum of $1091.71. This Avas an old debt, and Avas secured by me, at the time I contracted it, by a mortgage on property which was mine as a life-estate. This debt was made in March, 1921, before I applied for a year’s support. The $800, the consideration stated to be a present consideration in the deed whiclj I executed to the First National Bank, Avas a loan to me to pay off my past existing personal debts, and was not loaned to me for the purpose of securing maintenance and support for myself and minor children; neither Avas it used for that purpose, but went toward the payment of my own debts. The bank knew at the time that I was not borrowing this money to secure support for myself and children. . . I fear that unless an injunction is granted preventing the defendants from selling this land they will do so. I have been informed that they intend to sell it anyway. I have received a letter from Mr. Tyus [cashier of the defendant bank], stating that his directors would force this land to sale unless it was paid.” The letter referred to is as follows: “Mrs. Sims: Have you any idea as to whom the land could be sold, and what price it would bring ? To be frank, we are going to have to clear off our papers on this loan; and unless it can be sold at private sale, it seems that my directors will have-to force it to sale at the best bid.” The defendant submitted the affidavit of L. C. Tyus, its cashier, in part as follows: “The facts stated in said answer [of the bank] are true as therein stated. It is not true that the security deed held by the First National Bank of Barnesville was given by the plaintiff, Mrs. Ada Smith Sims, to secure a loan made to her to be used for the purpose of paying preexisting debts of said Mrs. Sims, but on the contrary the consideration of said notes, secured by said conveyance, was money furnished to support and maintain the family of Mrs. Sims, including all’ the plaintiffs named in said petition. Both the $800 note and the $1091.71 note were given by the said Mrs. Sims for money furnished to her by the First National Bank of Barnesville for the maintenance and support of her family, and was so used, and all the petitioners in said petition got the benefit thereof.” The defendant also introduced in evidence the mortgage given it by Mrs. Sims to secure the payment of $1091.71, already referred to, containing the following stipulation: “This mortgage is given for debts previously contracted for farming and living expenses during the year 1920.” Defendant also introduced in evidence the original deed to .secure debt, given by Mrs. Sims to the First National Bank of Barnesville on February 17, 1922, reciting a consideration of $800, and stating that it is also given to better secure an indebtedness due the grantee in the sum of $1091.71.
The court passed an order granting an interlocutory injunction as prayed. The First National Bank of Barnesville assigned error upon this judgment.
G. J. Lester, for plaintiff in error.
II. J. Kennedy, contra.