There was, in view of the conflicting evidence appearing in the record, no abuse of discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on a particular business in violation of their alleged agreement not to do so, the same being as to time and place and in other respects apparently reasonable. In such a case the rights of the plaintiffs, upon the assumption that the evidence supported their contentions of fact, could not be suitably protected by a bond, because the damages arising from the defendants’ breach of their contract would not be readily capable of ascertainment.

Judgment affirmed.