It is incumbent on the appellants to show that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the Court in modifying an injunction. (McGarrell v. Murphy, 1 Hilt. 132; Freeman on Cotenancy, 253.)
OPINION By the Court:
In the view we take of this case, we deem it unnecessary to decide whether the order appealed from dissolves or only modifies the preliminary injunction; and if the latter, whether it is an appealable order. It is a matter largely in the discretion of the District Court, whether, on the coming in of the answer, a preliminary injunction previously granted should be continued in force, dissolved, or modified; and, except in cases of palpable error or an abuse of discretion, the action of that Court in such cases will not be disturbed on appeal. (Godey v. Godey , 39 Cal. 167; McCreery v. Brown , 42 Cal. 462; Rogers v. Tennant , 45 Cal. 186; Patterson v. Supervisors , 50 Cal. 345.) Tested by this rule, we see nothing in the facts disclosed by the record to justify us in disturbing the order appealed from.
Order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.