JONES v. MAG1LL.—1 BLAND. 179

It is an ancient and well settled general rule, that where there
are several defendants to the bill, no motion to dissolve the injunc-
tion can be heard until all of them have answered. Pra. Beg. 200;
2 Harr. Pra. Chatt. 263; 3 Sac. Abr. 658; Eden Inj. 66; Wright
Nutt, 2 Dick. 691. (h) But to this, as to all other general rules, there

the public in general. Upon which this defendant moved to have a day ap-
pointed to hear a motion to dissolve.

KILTY, C., 12th December, 1808.— Ordered, that a motion for dissolving
the injunction be heard on the 20th instant; provided a copy of this order
be served on either of the complainants, or their solicitor, on or before the
18th instant.

The plaintiffs' solicitor admitted the service of a copy of this order, and
the motion came on to be heard.

KILTY, C., 20th Decemder, 1808.—The motion for the dissolution of the in-
junction issued on the 10th instant was. according to appointment, argued
on this day.

Although the presumption is, and ought to be, that persons acting under
the charter and ordinances of a corporation, will conform to the limitations
therein contained; yet when a case is stated, on oath, which apparently
shews a contrary proceeding, it becomes the duty of this Court to interfere.
The answer of the defendant, denying the grounds of the application, is,
however, entitled to equal attention. The Chancellor was under the impres-
sion, from the bill, that some of the parties held property immediately, or
very nearly fronting on the part of the street in which the work was to be
done. And he was not, nor is he now satisfied, that the consent of every
person, holding property fronting on Baltimore street and York street, was
necessary to be obtained. And, from the exhibits filed with the answer,
there is reason at least to doubt whether the commisaioners have acted
wrong; if not to believe, that they have acted right.

It is thereupon adjudged and ordered, that the injunction heretofore is-
sued in this case be and the same is hereby dissolved: leaving the parties to
proceed in equity or at law as they may think proper.

After which, on the 7th of July. 1809, this suit was dismissed, with costs,
by the complainants' solicitor. Whereupon the defendants obtained a bill of
their costs from the register, and moved, that the plaintiffs might be ordered
to pay the amount.

KILTY, C., 11th March, 1811.—Oil motion, on behalf of the defendants, it
is ordered, that the complainants, John Diffenderffer. Charles Tinges, and
George Smith, pay to the defendants, or either of them, or to their solicitor,
or their or his order, the sum of twenty dollars fifty-seven and one-half
cents; being the amount of the costs taxed by the register on the dismissal
of the bill of the said complainants; or that they shew cause to the contrary
on or before the 10th day of April next. Provided a copy of this order be
served on the said complainants, or either of them, or left at the place of
abode of any one of them, before the first day of April next.

(h) STEWART v. BARRY.—This bill was filed on the 31st of August, 1809, by
James Stewart, William Lorman, and William Gwynn, as executors of the
late William Evans, against Robert Barry, John Stewart, David McMechen,