JONES r. MAGILL.—1 BLAND. 169

same time, and together with the motion to dissolve. Alexander
v. Alexander, MS. 13th Dec. 1847; Eden Inj. 73. After the notice
of a motion to dissolve has been given, in either of those modes,
and the rule further proceedings has been entered, the defendant
may, at any time, after the specified period has elapsed, which is
the first four days of the then next term, take advantage of both,
at the same time, during the sittings of any term, so as to have
the injunction dissolved, and the bill dismissed at once; without
giving any fresh notice, or laying a new rule. 2 Mad. Chan, 385:
Nnylor v. Taylor, 10 Vets. 127; Bishtow v. Birch, 2 Vex. & Bea.
40; James v. Biou, 3 Sican. 244; Farquharson v. Pitcher. 3 Rus-
sell, 383.

The motion is to dissolve, unless cause shewn by the plaintiff;
and therefore on the hearing of it, the matter is opened by him,
then the defendant is heard, and the argument is closed on the
part of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff fails to appear and shew
cause, the injunction may be dissolved on such default, without
any consideration by the Court, of the bill and answer; which will
become absolute at the close of the sittings of the term unless cause
shewn. But, if the Chancellor is called on, during the sittings, as
he may be, for his judgment upon the motion to dissolve, and he
orders the injunction to be dissolved, then it will not, on any
account, be reinstated merely on the same bill and answer.

In extraordinary cases, however, the course of the Court has
always been varied to suit the emergency, or the peculiar circum-
stances. Eden Inj. 235. (d)

(d) BEYSON v. PETTY.—The bill, filed on the 13th of May, 1786, by Andrew
Bryson against John Petty and Thomas Rutland, states, that the plaintiff
was the master and commander of the ship Kitty, then lying in the harbor
of Annapolis, of which the defendants were the owners; that the plaintiff
had made several voyages in the ship, as master; and been under the neces-
sity of making sundry disbursements, and incurring considerable expenses
on account of repairs, &c. for the ship; that the defendants had refused to
account with, or reimburse him the amount thereof; and had, by a writ of
replevin, taken the ship, with her cargo of salt, from his possession; were
about to send her out of the country, and to go themselves beyond the
jurisdiction of this Court. Prayer for general relief; for an injunction to
prevent the removal of the ship and cargo; and for a ne exeat to prohibit
the defendants from leaving the State. This bill was sworn to in the usual
general manner. And there does not appear to be any other specification of
the claim or amount due than by a general reference to the exhibits.

ROGERS, C.. 13th May. 1786. —Issue subpoena, ne exeat, and injunction as
prayed, with liberty, nevertheless, for the said John Petty to proceed to the
trial of his replevin at law, but to stay execution on any judgment he may
obtain therein, until further order.

The defendant, Petty, by his petition, stated, that he had filed his answer,
that the ship Kitty belonged to him and his partner in England, Joseph