JONES r. MAGILL.—1 BLAND. 183

In the case under consideration the equity arises out of the facts
as alleged in the bill, that Harding and Magill have not only
fraudulently concealed and disposed of property which ought to
have been applied in satisfaction of the debt with which the

plaintiffe, with their bill, offered an injunction bond with surety in the
usual form, reciting, in the condition, the judgment of the Court of Appeals,
but taking no notice of the supersedeas.

KILTY, C., 15th July, 1809.—Let subpoena and injunction issue in the usual
form according to the prayer in the original bill. On further consideration
of the bill on which the injunction was ordered as above, the Chancellor
thinks it proper to state, that he will hear a motion for dissolving, if made
according to the practice of the Court in other respects, without waiting for
the answer of Stewart & Son, who may not be interested in the event of the
suit, and whom the other defendant cannot compel to answer.

On the 15th of February, 1810, the defendant Hall filed his answer, in
which the facts and circumstances set forth in the bill are fully answered,
explained away, or denied; and upon the filing of it, he caused to he entered
on the docket a motion to dissolve the injunction; and on the same day, ob-
tained the usual order authorizing notice to be given to shew cause. But
soon after obtaining this order, on discovering that the injunction bond was,
as he conceived, defective, he moved for an immediate dissolution of the
injunction on the ground of its having been improvidently granted.

KILTY, C., 28th February, 1810.—In this case, which stands on notice of a
motion to dissolve the injunction, it was urged by the counsel for the de-
fendant, that independent of the main question, the injunction ought to be
immediately dissolved on account of the bond not covering the judgment
by supersedeas, which stands injoined with the first judgment. The prac-
tice has been, in case of any defect, or deficiency in the bond, to require
further security and not to dissolve the injunction for that cause.

It is therefore, ordered, that unless an injunction bond, as required by
law, to secure the payment of the judgment confessed as a supersedeas
mentioned in the bill, and in the injunction, be filed in the Chancery office
with sufficient sureties on or before the 12th day of March next; the said
injunction as far as it relates to the supersedeas, will, on application after
that day be dissolved. Provided a copy of this order be served on the com-
plainant Williams, or his counsel, or either of the superseders on the judg-
ment so confessed, before the 7th day of March next.

In compliance with this order the plaintiffs filed another bond, in the con-
dition of which the judgment confessed, as a supersedeas was expressly re-
cited in the usual form, which bond they submitted for approbation.

KILTY, C.. 10th March, 1810.—The within bond is received for the present.
If any objection should be made thereto, and ruled good, a further time will
be fixed for the execution of another bond.

On the 7th of July, 1810, the defendant, David Stewart, put in his separate
answer, by which he explained away or denied most of the principal facts
and circumstances stated in the bill. And on the 6tb of August, 1810,