178 JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND.

to endorse, or send a copy of the order to be served along with the
writ of injunction, (g)

final settlement can be made; and as to his claims, for payments made, they
are Hot set forth with sufficient certainty in his answer. An order may here-
after be made for having the money levied, and brought into Court; but, at
present, it is Ordered, that the injunction be continued till further order;
with liberty, however, for the complainant, Jenifer, to bring into this Court
the sum due, after deducting the discounts claimed, and allowed, as appears
by the proceedings. The answer of T. and J. M. Daaiel to the bill of D. of
St. Tho. Jenifer, has not been considered in making the above decision; and
the manner in which it is put in is liable to some exceptions.

After some other unimportant proceedings, the case seems to have abated
by the death of the parties.

(g) DIFFENDERFFER v. HILLEN.—This suit was instituted on the 10th of
December, 1808, by John Diffenderffer. Charles Tinges, and George Smith,
against John Hillen and John Marsh. The bill states, that before Baltimore
was incorporated as a city, the then commissioners of the town had so graded
Baltimore street continued and York street, from Jones' Falls to Harford
street, as that the water, falling into them, was conveyed in nearly equal
proportions in the opposite directions to Jones' Falls and Harford Run; ac-
cording to which graduation they had regulated their improvements; that
by the Act of 1796. ch. 68, s. 9. the grade of no street can be altered without
the consent of the proprietors of the lots adjoining such street; that without
the consent of these plaintiffs, and contrary to law, the defendants, as city
commissioners, had altered the grade of Baltimore and York streets, whereby
there is, and will be a very considerable increase of water and filth conveyed
to Jones" Falls before their property, and that of others in like situation;
which, especially in the summer season, is matter of no small moment; and
that the defendants are now actively engaged in cutting down and adjusting
those streets to the new graduation. Upon which the plaintiffs prayed for
general relief, and for an injunction to prevent the alteration of the grade
of those streets.

KILTY. C.. 10th December, 1808.—From a perusal of this bill, and an ex-
amination of the Act of Assembly referred to, the Chancellor is at present
of opinion, that there is ground for the complaint made: and that the in-
junction ought to be granted. Whether the Act of 1797, ch. 54, makes any
alteration of the provisions in the 9th section of the Act of 1796, ch. 68, he
is not prepared to say. But to prevent the injury which might arise by the
interference of this Court, in. case the commissioners should appear to be
acting -within their authority, it is to be understood, that a motion to dis-
solve the injunction will be heard at any time, on such notice as shall be
directed, either before, or after answer. The injunction to be issued as
prayed, and this order copied thereon.

On the 12th of December, 1808, the defendant Hillen alone put in his
answer, in which he stated, that the alteration in the grade of the streets,
as stated in the bill, had been made with the consent of the proprietors of
the immediately adjacent lots; that the plaintiffs owned no lots nearer than
from six to nine hundred feet from those streets: and that these defendants
then had employed nearly twenty laborers, with carts, making the alter-
ations in those streets; which, when made, would be highly beneficial to