JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND. 165

Exceptions to the answer, and the motion to dissolve, may stand for hearing
at the same time.

The rule further proceedings may be entered, during the sittings, and at the
same time with the entry of notice of motion to dissolve, and may be
enforced at the same time; or at the proper time after the motion to dis-
solve has been disposed of.

On hearing the motion, the plaintiff opens and concludes the argument.

In extraordinary cases, the injunction is granted upon terms adapted to the
circumstances.

It is a general rule, that where there are two or more defendants, no motion
to dissolve can be heard until all of them have them answered; but to
this rule there are exceptions, (b}

Where one of the defendants has answered, he may have the plaintiff com-
pelled to use all due diligence to enforce an answer from the other de-
fendants, or to have the case placed in such a situation as to enable the
responding defendant to move for a dissolution of the injunction.

"Where the equity of the bill appears to be doubtful, or where the nature of
the subject enjoined is such as to require a hearing without delay, &c.
the Chancellor, in granting the injunction specifies the time and terms
upon which a motion for a dissolution, may be heard.
PAUL v. NIXON, (Note.)

A. complainant, on che filing of the answer, is entitled to have the cause set
down for final hearing on bill and answer, and by so doing he admits
the truth of everything contained in the answer, (c)

THIS bill was filed on the 18th of January, 1825, by Elizabeth
Ann Jones, executrix of Abraham Jones, deceased, against Thomas
Magill, John F. Gittings, and Thomas N. Harding. The bill states,
that on the 26th of October, 1818, the defendant Harding, gave
his note for the sum of $500, to the defendant Gittings, which
was signed by the late Abraham Jones, the testator of the plaintiff,
as surety for Harding, that Harding in order to save Jones harm-
less, on the 10th of August, 1822, by a bill of sale, conveyed to
Alexander Warfield certain negroes and other personal property,
a part of which was intended for the security of Warfield, who
was bound for Harding in other cases; that after the death of the
plaintiff's testator, Warfield, on the 5th of April, 1823, by bill of
sale, conveyed to this plaintiff, two negroes named Nelson and
Mason, which were intended by Harding to secure the plaintiff
against loss by the liability of her testator, on the note for $500;
that, with a view to defraud the plaintiff, those negroes had been
concealed and disposed of, out of this State, by the defendants
Hardiug and Magill; that on the 11th of December, 1821, Hardiug,
by bill of sale, conveyed two negroes, John and Westley, to the
defendant Gittings, for the purpose of securing to him the pay-
ment of a note which he held of Harding's, for the sum of $326.81;
that the money secured by those two notes belonged to Juliet A.

(b) Approved in Heck v. Vollmer, 29 Md. 510.

(c) Approved in Warren v. Twilley, 10 Md. 48.