Gilbert, J.
The discretion of the trial judge in granting or refusing an injunction at the interlocutory hearing, where the evidence is conflicting, will not be interfered with unless it is made to appear that there was an abuse of discretion. In this ease it does not appear that the .discretion of the trial judge was abused.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
The answer of the defendants set up that the mule in question was sold to the petitioner and not to her husband, and that she knew- defendants would not extend credit to her husband; and denied the allegations of insolvency and that petitioner would be injured by the exercise of the power of sale.
.The evidence offered by petitioner on the hearing was to the effect that early in the year 1930 her husband purchased from defendants a mule for which he gave his note for $335; that she had never authorized him to purchase any animal from the defendants, and had never bought anything from them; that this mule proved unsatisfactory, and was exchanged by her husband with the defendants for another, upon the agreement of her husband to pay $100 additional; that at the. time of the exchange the defendants stated to the husband that they were unable to procure the original note from the bank where it was kept, but that within two or three clays they would go to his home aud procure the execution of the note for $425; that the defendants did go to the home of petitioner, in the absence of her husband, and, after stating to her that they held her husband’s note for $325 which they had accepted for the first mule, induced her to execute a note and mortgage covering the last mule for $425, which she agreed to do with the understanding that it was for her husband’s debt and that the mortgage would include only the property purchased by him from defendants; that she heard nothing further from the matter until March 3, 1923, when the defendants came to her home and requested that she make a renewal of the note in order that the same might be extended for an additional term; that she was inexperienced in the execution of mortgages, liens, and other instruments and could not tell from an examination of the instrument as to its character or effect, and she signed the instrument presented by the defendants, which they stated was merely a renewal of the first note given by her for the debt of her husband, when as a matter of fact it was a deed covering the land belonging to petitioner; that while the name of petitioner’s husband appears as a witness upon said deed, he was not present and did not witness the execution and delivery of the same; that his signature was affixed after the signature of petitioner for the purpose, as he understood upon representations of defendant, of becoming joint maker of a renewal of the note for $425.
The evidence offered by the defendants was to the effect that they were amply solvent, and that the sale of the mule was made., to Mrs. Bennett and not to her husband. The court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction, and error was assigned upon that judgment. • •
B. A. Moore, for plaintiff.
B. B. Chastain, for defendants. .