182 JONES v. MAG1LL.—1 BLAND.

the suit, was allowed to move for a dissolution of the injunction;
Nugent v. Symth, Mosely, 354; and the injunction may be dissolved
as against some of the defendants only; or it may be dissolved on
the answer of an insolvent, who has no interest in the matter,
upon his speaking to facts peculiarly within his own knowledge
before his insolvency; Joseph v. Dovbleday, 1 Fes. & Eea. 497:
and so where it appears from the nature of the case, that the
responding defendant is the only one who can speak, from his
own knowledge, in relation to the facts on which the injunction
rests; Boheme v. Porter, Barn. Chan, Rep. 352; Roweroft v. Donald-
son, 1 Fow Ex, Pra. 286; as were the defendants who have not
answered are infants, and so too where it appears, that the answer
of a non-resident defendant cannot be material as to the facts on
which the injunction is founded. Snolbred v. Mac-master, 2 Anstr.
366. (i)

(i) WILLIAMS v. HALL.—It appears, that a bill had been filed previous to
the institution of this suit, by James Williams and Solomon Hillen, against
EdwardiHall, David Stewart, and David C. Stewart, to obtain an injunction,
which having been filed and submitted to the Chancellor, he granted the
injunction, but suggested, that the bill seemed to be too indistinct and
merely argumentative in regard to the plaintiffs not being interested as
partners with the Stewarts. In consequence of which the plaintiffs after-
wards, by their petition, stating, that no process had been issued, or served,
prayed leave to withdraw their bill and exhibits from the files of the Court.
Upon which, on the 6th of July, 1809. the leave was granted as prayed.

This bill was filed on the 15th of July, 1809, by the same plaintiffs, against
the same defendants. From which it appears, that the plaintiffs were part-
ners in trade, which they conducted by Williams then residing in the West
Indies, and Hillen in Baltimore; that Hall also then resided in the West
Indies, carrying on trade there as a merchant; and that the Stewarts were
residents of Baltimore, and partners in trade under the firm of David
Stewart & Son: that this firm of David Stewart & Son had sent the schooner
Holstein with a cargo on a voyage to the West Indies, consigned to Hall,
who had sold that outward cargo; and, by various dealings in relation to
that vessel, had made sundry advances, by which those who owned her.
and were jointly concerned in her, had become indebted to him in a very
considerable sum; that the defendant Hall had instituted a suit against these
plaintiffs, with David Stewart & Son, as the joint owners of that vessel,
and recovered judgment against them for the sum of $13,448,53 and costs;
which judgment had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals: and on execu-
tion being issued thereon the plaintiffs had superseded the judgment, and
given bond with surety according to law; that the defendants David Stewart
& Son had become bankrupts, in consequence of which the whole liability
and weight of the judgment had fallen upon theee plaintiffs; that the plain-
tiffs were in truth not partners of David Stewart & Son, or in any way inte-
rested with them in the schooner Holsfcein; which fact, although well known
to these defendants, these plaintiffs had been unable to shew and establish
on the trial at law. And for the purpose of more perfectly illustrating and
explaining the whole transaction, they prayed that the defendants might be
ordered to produce their books of accounts, &c. Wherefore they prayed for
an injunction to stay the proceedings at law, for general relief, &c. The