(after stating the facts). While it is true the complaint avers and the answer admits, in general terms, that the defendants were in possession of the entire tract, it is quite obvious the relief sought and meant to be given in the order of appointment was against the loss of what prof *389 its would come into the hands of the defendants from their use and occupation. This is apparent from the provision, that upon giving the required security, the defendants were not to be disturbed, but allowed “ to keep possession of said property.” To avoid a literal interpretation of the terms of the order, and to put it in a form to give effect to the intention of the parties and of the Court, it was eminently proper to correct the order in the manner in which it was done, and thus place the acts charged upon the plaintiffs outside of the sphere of its proposed operation and scope Thus there was no disobedience, and no ground for the further proceedings against the plaintiffs and their associates, and the motion for attachment was necessarily denied. The proceeding was strictly punitory in its object, and if there had been a violation of the words of the order, in their strict sense, it was sq obviously not wilful as to bring a disavowal of an intent to disobey within the ruling in Bond v. Bond, 69 N. C., 97.

As the decision was adverse to the application, and the accused parties acquitted of the charge, the costs would ordinarily be made to follow the result. Certainly no cause of complaint can be made when the defendants are adjudged to pay but half of the costs incurred. There is.no error, and this will be certified.

No error. - Affirmed.