Injunction—action Against Plaintiff—Sureties on Bond—Pleading —Malice—Probable Cause.—A complaint which contains two counts, one for damages against the plaintiff in an injunction suit, and the other against the sureties upon the injunction bond, but which fails to aver either malice or want of probable cause in the issuance of the writ of injunction, fails to state any cause of action against the plaintiff in the injunction suit.

Id.—Dismissal of Injunction Suit—Admission. — The fact that the plaintiff in the injunction suit voluntarily dismissed the action does not show an admission on his part that he had no probable cause for commencing it.

Id.—Malicious Prosecution of Injunction—Action for Damages— Remedy Against Sureties.—An action on the case for damages will not lie for improperly suing' out an injunction unless the complaint charges an abuse of the process of the court through malice and without probable cause. If the act complained of is destitute of these ingredients, the only remedy of the injured parties is an action upon the injunction bond.

Id.—Liability of Plaintiff Upon Bond.—The plaintiff in the injunction suit is not liable upon the injunction bond, if he was not a party to the undertaking.

Id.—Liability of Sureties—Proof Required.—The liability of the sureties upon an injunction bond depends simply upon proof that the injunction was issued, that the defendants suffered damage thereby and that the court has decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction.

Id.—Voluntary Dismissal—Decision of Court.—The voluntary dismissal of an injunction suit by the plaintiff has the same effect as a decision of the court, that he was not entitled to the injunction.

Id.—Joint Demurrer—Misjoinder of Parties and Causes.—In an action against the plaintiff in the injunction suit and the sureties on the injunction bond, where the second count of the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against the sureties, while the first count stated no cause of action against the plaintiff in the injunction suit, a joint demurrer by all the defendants upon the ground that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant, and that a cause of action upon the case was improperly united with a cause of action upon a special contract, is properly overruled as against the sureties.

Id.—Effect of Joint Demurrer. —A joint demurrer by all of the defendants to an action is properly overruled if the complaint is good as against either of them.

Id.—Joinder of Parties—Appeal—-Harmless Ruling.—A complaint is not necessarily defective in which there is united with some defendants another against whom no liability is alleged or recovery sought, and an order overruling a demurrer for misjoinder of parties defendant does not constitute a reversible error, if the rights of the parties have not been prejudiced.

Id.—Misjoinder of Causes Not Affecting Substantial Rights.— Where the substantial rights of the parties to an action have not been affected by a misjoinder of causes of action, a judgment rendered after a trial of the case upon its merits should not be reversed because the court overruled a demurrer for such misjoinder.

Id.—Jury Trial—Excuse of Juror—Unavailable Exception.—The right of a party to an action to have the cause tried by an impartial jury does not give him the right to have it tried by any particular jurors, and the act of the court in excusing a juror does not give an available exception to a party objecting thereto, even if such juror is competent to act in the case.

Id.—Obedience to Ambiguous Injunction—Estoppel of Plaintiff—Liability of Sureties.—Parties against whom an injunction has been issued are bound to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the injunction, and are justified in acting so as not to render themselves liable for a contempt in disregarding it on the ground that it is ambiguous, and it does not lie in the mouth of the person who has secured an injunction which is ambiguous in its terms to object to its obedience on the part of the defendants, or to their claim for recompense for the damage they have sustained thereby. His acquiescence in their obedience must be accepted as his own construction of the manner in which he intended it to be obeyed, and his bondsmen are liable upon their bond for the damages consequent thereon.