Henry O. Wackerbarth for Appellant.

E. Burton Ceruti for Respondent.

LENNON, J.-The complaint in this action is in two counts. For the purposes of this opinion, it is necessary for us to consider only the allegations of the second count. In this count the plaintiff alleges, in effect, that on November 5, 1914, he and the defendant entered into a partnership agreement for the purpose of engaging in the business of carting and hauling. At the time of the creation of the partnership the defendant was purchasing a motor truck under an installment contract. It was agreed that each of the parties should pay the vendor of the truck $50 per month from his own funds, until the balance of $750 due on the truck was paid. Plaintiff was to "drive and use said truck in said partnership business, for which services," he should receive, "out of the income of said business, the sum of $60 per month." After the payment of the balance due on the truck, and a further payment to defendant of $275 in certain installments, plaintiff was to become a joint owner of the truck with defendant. The parties agreed to share the cost of maintaining and repairing the truck.

The complaint further alleged plaintiff's performance of all acts agreed by him to be performed under the partnership agreement, and that defendant had, from time to time, procured, obtained, secreted, and applied to his own use the receipts and profits of the business, aggregating a sum of money far in excess of his own share thereof; that he had deprived plaintiff of plaintiff's share thereof; that defendant had failed to apply moneys so received to the costs of the business, or to meet any of the payments to the vendor of the truck, as provided in the partnership agreement. It was also alleged that under said agreement plaintiff was entitled to the exclusive use and possession of said truck, and was charged with the duty of operating it; that on November 7, 1915, defendant fraudulently and by trick and device obtained possession of the truck and ever since has maintained the exclusive possession of the truck, and has prevented the plaintiff from having access to the same, from participating in the partnership business, from discharging his duties in said business, and from participating in any of the profits; that defendant

still collects the partnership debts and appropriates the proceeds to his own use, to the exclusion of plaintiff and greatly exceeding the proportion to which defendant was entitled, to the detriment of the firm's business and to plaintiff's injury. The complaint alleged that plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, and that by reason of the acts complained of he has suffered and will suffer irreparable injury. The prayer of the complaint is for an accounting, for a dissolution of the partnership and a sale of its property, with a division of the proceeds between the partners, and for an injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession and use of the truck and from interfering with the debts, moneys, or other property and effects of the partnership.

After an order to show cause, a temporary injunction was granted plaintiff which purported to maintain the rights of the respective parties in statu quo pending the hearing of the merits. The hearing of the application for an injunction pendente lite was had upon the allegations of the complaint and the affidavits pro and con of the respective parties, no answer having been filed at the time of the hearing of the application.

The defendant appeals from the order granting the injunction, and also from an order refusing to dissolve the same, but inasmuch as neither the motion to dissolve nor the order refusing to dissolve appears in the record, we need discuss only the appeal from the order granting the injunction.

Appellant's first point is to the effect that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for an injunction, nor does it appear therefrom that the plaintiff was without an adequate remedy at law, or that he had or would suffer irreparable injury. In considering this point we must bear in mind the purpose for which the action is brought, and the object of the temporary injunction. The suit is being prosecuted for an accounting and for a dissolution of the partnership. The injunction is ancillary thereto, being granted in order to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the case on its merits. [1] This is a proper subject for the remedy of a temporary injunction. (Raisch v. Warren, 18 Cal. App. 655, [124 Pac. 95]; 2 High on Injunctions, 4th ed., sec. 1342; 30 Cyc. 725.) However, we need not decide whether the complaint, in itself, states facts which, standing alone, suffice to support a temporary in

junction. [2] It is a rule so universally followed and so often stated as to need only to be referred to that the granting, denying, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve a preliminary or temporary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court upon a consideration of all the particular circumstances of each individual case. (White v. Nunan, 60 Cal. 406; Marks v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co., 121 Cal. 53, [53 Pac. 362]; Piper v. Hawley, 179 Cal. 10, [175 Pac. 417]; 22 Cyc. 746.) A careful consideration of the opposing affidavits of the respective parties, in connection with the complaint itself, satisfies us that the court below did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction complained of.

The appellant further urges that the injunction was improperly granted because of the fact that the defendant met the complaint by affidavits denying the material allegations of the complaint. [3] It may be conceded that the general rule is that a temporary injunction will not be granted upon the complaint alone, when defendant files a verified answer specifically denying all the material allegations of the complaint. (Crandall v. Woods, 6 Cal. 449; Gagliardo v. Crippen, 22 Cal. 362.) But this court has also held that there may be peculiar circumstances in a case justifying a temporary injunction even in the face of the absolute denials of the answer. (De Godey v. Godey, 39 Cal. 157, 166; McCreery v. Brown, 42 Cal. 457.) And where upon the hearing of the application additional and peculiar circumstances are shown by testimony or by affidavits, the court, in the exercise of its discretion, may take these circumstances into consideration. (Coolot v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 52 Cal. 65; Hiller v. Collins, 63 Cal. 235: 2 High on Injunctions, 4th ed., secs. 1508, 1509.) [4] In the present case the affidavits of defendant admitted the creation of the partnership and then merely set up matter which constituted an avoidance of the averments of the complaint rather than an absolute, unequivocal denial. (See 22 Cyc. 947.) Furthermore, the plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit controverting the affidavits presented by the defendant. Here, again, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction, after taking all the circumstances before it into consideration.

Finally, appellant urges that specific performance of a partnership contract will not be decreed, and that an injunc tion cannot be granted to prevent a breach of a contract which

will not be specifically enforced. But these rules do not apply to the case before us, since specific performance is not sought or given by the relief here granted. The relief sought is an accounting and dissolution, and the injunction simply preserves the subject matter of the action to await the final disposition of the cause on the merits. [5] "The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. It merely determines that the court, balancing the respective equities of the parties, concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or that he should not be restrained from exercising the rights claimed by him." (Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal etc. Co., 155 Cal. 59, [22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391, 99 Pac. 502].)

The orders appealed from are affirmed.

Wilbur, J., and Melvin, J., concurred.

[S. F. No. 8801. Department Two.-March 27, 1919.] In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM J. HENRICHS, Deceased. ROBERT AHRENS, Appellant, v. EUCLID ASTON et al., Respondents.

[1] ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS CLAIM OF HEIRSHIP BY GERMAN CITIZEN RIGHT TO CONTINUANCE UNTIL TERMINATION OF WAR.A native and citizen of Germany making claim to the entire estate of a deceased person, as a relative in the fourth degree, as against petitioners for the distribution of the estate to them as relatives in the fifth degree, is entitled upon the hearing of the petition, to a reasonable time in which to prepare and present his claim to heirship, where he presents certificates and records in support of his motion for a continuance, and it is an abuse of discretion to deny such motion. The hearing should be continued until after the termination of the war between Germany and the United States. [2] ID. ALIEN ENEMY-RIGHT TO APPEAR IN PROCEEDING TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.-Under section 7, subdivision b, of the "Trading With the Enemy Act," passed by Congress on October 6, 1917, an alien enemy, regardless of whether he be considered a defendant in a technical sense in such a proceeding, is entitled to maintain his rights against an actual assault thereon.

APPEAL from a decree of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco distributing the estate of a deceased person. Thos. F. Graham, Judge. Reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Gustave Gutsch for Appellant.

True Van Sickle for Respondents.

WILBUR, J.-This is an appeal from a decree of distribution by which the whole estate, consisting of $11,778.71 in money, was distributed to the respondents, five children of Anna Fredericksen Aston. It is conceded that the distributees were related to the decedent in the fifth degree. The court finds that they were the grandchildren of decedent's predeceased aunt, Maria Gertrude Ahrens Frederickson. Robert Ahrens claims to be a son of a brother of said Maria Gertrude Ahrens Frederickson, and of decedent's mother, Anna Bernardina Elisabeth Ahrens, thus being related in the fourth degree and entitled to inherit the entire property of the decedent. Both claim to be related to the decedent through his mother. Among the papers of the decedent was a certificate of the marriage of decedent's parents, certifying that "Henrich Gerhard Henrichs, single, born in Blexun, Oldenburg, 31 years of age, 337 Walker, tinsmith, and Bernhardine Arens, single, 30 years of age, of Neuenkirchen, Oldenburg, 337 Walker Street, were married" February 8, 1863, at the German Evangelic Lutheran St. Matheus Church on Walker Street, New York; a certificate of birth and baptism on November 15, 1863, at New York, of a son of Henrich Gerhard Henrichs, 287 Eleventh Street, born in Blexen, Oldenburg, and Anna Marie Bernhardine, née Arens, his wife, who was baptized on February 18, 1864, and received the name of Johann Wilhelm; and also the certificate of confirmation, showing that Johann Wilhelm Henrichs was born on November 15, 1863, and was confirmed April 14, 1878, in the Evangelic Lutheran St. Paulus Church of San Francisco. The last two certificates are of the birth and confirmation of the decedent.

In connection with appellant's motion for a continuance certain records were presented which it was contended estab