164 JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND.

"The first appears to be admitted. The sums paid to the bill
holders by the Bells, amount to a greater sum. Thompson's
account against the Bells shews an amount due to him greatly
exceeding the sum paid him by Heyland. The bills of the Whittles
and Tucker, (notarial copies of which are admitted,) amount, with
damages and costs, to about that sum. These bills Thompson had
endorsed and taken up, and the Bells were liable to him on them,
and it was for them, it appears, he entered into the liability; to
them he had a right to look; and although there is an expres-
sion in one of his letters, that he meant first to get the money
from the "Whittles, if practicable, yet we do not think he was
bound by that expression to follow the Whittles with strict
legal diligence. There is no evidence to shew, that there has
been any such engagement, or such negligence in enforcing it
against the Whittles as should absolve the Bells. There are
other items in Thompson's account, which we did not understand
were objected to.

" Upon the whole, we award and determine, that neither the
complainants, the original bill holders, nor the assignees of the
Bells, nor those of Marcus Heyland, have any claim upon the
funds received by Thompson from Heyland. And that a decree
shall therefore be made dismissing their bill; but without costs.
12th February, 1827."

A decree was passed accordingly on the 26th February, 1827.

]77 * JONES v. MAGILL.

INJUNCTIONS.—MOTION TO DISSOLVE.

An injunction may be granted in any case on the bill alone, before a snb-
pania has been issued, except to stay proceedings at law in an action of
ejectment by a lessor, or to recover mortgaged property.

But an injunction will not be granted on the bill alone unless it be verified
by the affidavit of the plaintiff, or by some other testimony sufficient to
induce the Chancellor to credit the truth of the statements, (a)

The mode of giving notice of a motion to dissolve.

(a) Approved in Charles v. Sheriff, 12 Md. 379; Meyers v. Amey, al Md. 306.
The practice in Maryland does not require other affidavits than that of the
complainant to procure an injunction before answer, where the facts are in
pais. If they rest in record, or depend upon written evidence, such docu-
mentary evidence as constitutes prima facie evidence of their truth, as office
copies, or short copies and docket entries, are required in addition in proof
of such facts. Meyers v. Amey. What is required as preliminary to the
granting of an injunction, other than the sufficiency of the averments of
the bill, is that the confidence of the Court should be obtained, and this
may be had. on documentary evidence as well as on affidavit. Charles v.
Sheriff. As to injunctions generally, see Salmon v. Clagett, 3 Bland, 125.