174 JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND.

pears, from the statement in the bill, that the facts rest altogether
within the knowledge of one ortwo of them, the Chancellor always,

Note (d) concluded.

fact entitled to what he claimed; or should the injunction be continued in
opposition to such an answer, for the purpose of taking it up at the succeed-
ing term? The Chancellor recollects some cases in which answers have
been thus put in, and have been, considered, without any objection having
been made. And he is clearly of opinion, that the answers, as far as they
are affected by this objection, form a part of the case now for its determi-
nation.

When the bill was presented to the Chancellor, he was not informed of
the opinion which had been given by the Court of Appeals. A short copy
only of the judgment of that Court was filed, stating the affirmance, with-
out any notice of an opinion having been given. (2 H. & J. 41.) The answer
of Story has been filed since the argument; but is not considered as making
any difference in the decision.

It is, on the whole, Ordered, that the injunction in this case shall be, after
the 30th day of the present month, dissolved without further application or
order. Provided, that if the complainant shall, on or before that day, pay
the amount due on the said judgment, and the legal costs to the said Alex-
ander Story, or his assigns, or his counsel in this suit; or pay the same into
this Court, for the purpose of being immediately so paid, an order for another
injunction will be issued, if applied for.

On the 3th of October, 1807, the bill was dismissed by order of the plain-
tiff. After which, Thomas C. Jenkins, by his petition stated, that he had
paid the sum of S12.99 for postage, notarial seals. &c. in obtaining the
answer of the defendant Story, which he prayed to have allowed to him;
and, that the register be directed to tax that amount with the costs of the
defendant.

KILTY, C-, 10th March. 1808.—The Chancellor is not satisfied, that this
charge is probably taxable in the costs; and the present state of the accounts
is a further objection. Supposing the petition to be intended for an order
to have those sums taxed in or added to the costs, it cannot be granted.

Note (e) continued

round the head of South River, by Waters' mill, and the South River Meet-
inghouse, to Ashton's ford, on the Patuxent, thence through Ogle's planta-
tion to intersect the road leading to Bladensburg; provided, that they should
not run it through the buildings, yards, orchards, gardens, or meadows of
any one without his consent. Under the authority of this law, the commis-
sioners surveyed the road, along the route thus described, so as to pass near
the mill of John Worthington; upon which he filed a bill in this Court, on
the 11th of December, 1805. in which he alleges, that the commissioners had
exceeded the authority conferred on them by this law, in locating the road
in such a manner as most wrongfully, and ruinously to affect his mill, by
so crossing and passing along the mill race, as to obstruct or prevent the
water from flowing to it. And thereupon prayed an injunction to prevent
the commissioners from opening the road, as thus located by them. Which
injunction was granted as prayed. The commissioners answered the bill,
and denied the allegations and opinions as therein set forth by the plaintiff.

Note (e) continued on next page.