Appeal was taken from that order and the sole issue before this court is whether the trial judge erred in denying the injunction pending determination of the right of the parties. Held:

1. The Supreme Court considered an appeal from a judgment by the trial court which after hearing dismissed a temporary restraining order previously entered. It was there held: "Under decisions exemplified by Hudon v. North Atlanta, 219 Ga. 179 (132 SE2d 74), and cases there cited, the present case is not a case in equity since the effect of the plaintiffs' prayers is merely to maintain the status of the parties until the declaration of their rights may be determined." Pichulik v. Simpson, 227 Ga. 55 (178 SE2d 860). Accord, Jahncke Service v. Dept. of Transportation, 137 Ga. App. 179, 180 (1) (223 SE2d 228). We therefore consider the equitable principles involved in this case.

2. "The complaint and answer, both being verified, served the office of pleading and evidence on application for injunction." Greene v. Interstate Credit Corp., 228 Ga. 573, 575 (186 SE2d 869). Accord, Roberts v. Roberts, 180 Ga. 671 (3) (180 SE 491).

3. "In an application for an interlocutory injunction there should be a balancing of conveniences and a consideration of whether greater harm might be done by refusing than by granting the injunction." Maddox v. Willis, 205 Ga. 596 (5) (54 SE2d 632). Accord, Everett v. Tabor, 119 Ga. 128 (4) (46 SE 72); Parker v. West View Cemetery Assn., 195 Ga. 237, 244 (24 SE2d 29). In the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction, the trial judge is vested with a wide discretion, which will not be controlled unless abused. Verner v. DeKalb County, 207 Ga. 436 (2) (61 SE2d 921). Accord, Ballard v. Waites, 194 Ga. 427, 429 (1) (21 SE2d 848).