Efford v. South Pacific Coast Railroad Co.

         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.