It does not appear from this record that any services were rendered by the appellee's attorneys in obtaining the dissolution of the injunction other than such as were rendered in defending the case on its merits. Consequently the issuance of the injunction did not cause the appellee to incur any liability for attorney's fees in excess of that which he necessarily incurred in defending the case on its merits, and the case is therefore ruled by Mims v. Swindle, 124 Miss. 686" court="Miss." date_filed="1920-10-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mims-v-swindle-7993854?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7993854">124 Miss. 686, 87 So. 151" court="Miss." date_filed="1920-10-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mims-v-swindle-7993854?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7993854">87 So. 151; Howell v.McLeod, 127 Miss. 1" court="Miss." date_filed="1921-10-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/howell-v-mcleod-7994068?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7994068">127 Miss. 1, 89 So. 774" court="Miss." date_filed="1921-10-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/howell-v-mcleod-7994068?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7994068">89 So. 774, Giglio v. Saia (Miss.),106 So. 513" court="Miss." date_filed="1926-01-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/giglio-v-saia-3513664?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3513664">106 So. 513, and Hunter v. Hankinson (Miss.), 106 So. 514" court="Miss." date_filed="1925-10-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hunter-v-hankinson-3514892?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3514892">106 So. 514, decided January 4, 1926, but not yet [officially] reported. The attorney's fee should not be allowed.
The decree of the court below, in so far as it awards the appellee an attorney's fee as damages for the suing out of the injunction, will be reversed, and the appellee's motion therefor will be dismissed, but in all other respects the decree will remain in full force and effect.
Reversed.