JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND. 177

for the purpose of apprising the defendant of those special terms,
upon which the injunction has been granted, the register is directed

the books; nor is he satisfied, that it is proper to be discounted in this case.
On account of the distant residence of the defendants, T. and J. M. Daniel,
a motion to dissolve the in junction will be heard without their answer.

After which the plaintiff, by his petition, prayed for leave so to amend his
bill as to aver, that his intestate had paid to this defendant, Travers Daniel,
through his solicitor, in farther part satisfaction of the decree, the sum of
$120, the vouchers of which payment this plaintiff had discovered since the
filing of his bill.

The defendant, by his answer, admitted the payment of the £300, as al-
leged, and that the decree had been to that amount satisfied; he also ad-
mitted, that the covenant had been entered into with the defendants,
Travers and John, as stated: but averred, that he had not been saved harm-
less, as stipulated; that he had been compelled to pay large sums of money,
and was still liable for other claims as executor; to meet all which he had a
right to collect and retain the balance due on the decree. In regard to the
allegations of the petition to amend, this defendant, by a separate answer
thereto, and agreement, admitted the payment as alleged. After which,
the usual order nisi was passed, requiring notice to be given to the plaintiff,
to shew cause why the injunction should not be dissolved.

On the 22nd of July, 1810, an answer was put in for the defendants,
Travers and John, apparently in the hand-writing of the plaintiff's solicitor;
who, by a note in writing, agreed to receive it as such without oath. By
this answer these defendants admitted most of the statements in the bill;
they averred, that they had offered and were ready to indemnify the de-
fendant Michael, according to their covenant, the copy of which, as ex-
hibited by the plaintiff, they admitted to be correct; they stated, that they
had filed their bill in this Court against the defendant Michael, to compel
him to account; that he is in very great pecuniary difficulties; and if he if
permitted to collect the balance due on the decree, they will be wholly un-
able to recover it from him.

KILTY, C., 27th July, 1810.—The motion to dissolve the injunction in this
case was argued at the present term. The equity, or cause of complaint,
was removed by the answer of M. J. Stone, releasing the £300 paid to T.
Daniel. The petition to amend, which was since filed, respecting the sums
paid to counsel, amounting to 120 dollars, is also answered by the agreement
of M. J. Stone, to relinquish his claim to that amount. So that there would
be no grounds for continuing the injunction, as between these parties only.
But the question is, as to the effect of dissolving the injunction between M.
J. Stone, the executor of T. Stone, and T. and J. M. Daniel, as his represen-
tatives. And on the circumstances of this case, the Chancellor is of opinion,
that the interests of the latter ought to he attended to so far as to prevent
the receipt by M. J. Stone of the money due from Jenifer at present. It
may he objected to the bill of T. and J. M. Daniel, filed the 2d of July, 1810,
that it is not on oath; but it is accompanied by a very important paper, viz.
the covenant or agreement between them and the executors of T. Stone,
which would probably have been sufficient to have had the suit against
Jenifer entered for the use of the former.

Considering M. J. Stone as an executor; and, therefore, acting as a trustee,
he cannot be injured by the money due from Jenifer being retained until a

12 1 B.