184 JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND.

plaintiff is charged; but that they have done so, and indulged and
settled with Harding, who was the principal debtor, in a manner

David C. Stewart filed his answer, in which he refers to, adopts, and relies
upon the answer of his partner and co-defendant, David Stewart.

KILTY, C.. 12th September, 1810.—The motion to dissolve the injunction in
this case came on to be heard according to notice at the present term, and
was fully argued by the counsel on each side.

In this case, as in others of a similar nature, whatever might be the result
on the final hearing, it would be proper to continue the injunction if the
answer was evasive and not full; if the answer did not deny the facts on
which the equity of the complainants rested; and also if the books and
papers, exhibited in compliance with the prayer of the bill, shewed, that
the facts were different from what the defendant conceived and represented
them to be. But the answer of the defendant Hall certainly contains a full
and complete denial of the equity stated in the bill; and the documents
called for by the complainants, go more to corroborate than to weaken that
denial; and Hall's answer is also sustained by those of Stewart & Son, filed
since the notice of the motion to dissolve.

Among the points, deducible from the charges made in the bill, the most
important is that the complainants Hillen and Williams were not interested
with Stewart & Son in the Holstein. It would make an end of the case,
and was therefore most strenuously urged by the complainant's counsel.
But it is a remarkable circumstance, that, although the bill may be said to
be argumentative with a view of inducing the Court to believe this to be
the fact, it is not in any part thereof expressly" stated to be so. And the
Chancellor is more particularly induced to notice this circumstance, from
his recollection of having pointed it out as one of the objections to the bill
that was first filed.

Upon the whole it is ordered, that the injunction heretofore issued in this
case, be and the saame is hereby dissolved.

The plaintiffs, by their petition, filed on the 9th of February, 1811, without
oath or affidavit of any one. stated, that they believe, that further answers
and documents which David Stewart could make and produce, relative to
the matters and things contained in the bill of complaint, would materially
promote the development of the facts alleged in it, and particularly the fol-
lowing books, papers and documents, viz: The ledger of the said David
Stewart & Son, from the beginning of the year 1799, till the dissolution of
their partnership; their journal, day book, &c. &c. And therefore pray,
that David Stewart & Son may be ordered to produce in Court all the afore-
said books, papers and documents, if in their possession or control; or if
not, that they state particularly what has hecome of them, and in whose
possession or control they now are.

KILTY, C., 11th February, 1811.—The Chancellor has considered the within
petition. The order prayed for cannot be made without a compliance with
the requisites of the Act of 1798, ch. 84.

After which one of the plaintiffs, Williams, filed his affidavit of the truth
of the facts and allegations stated in their petition, asking for the production
of books and papers.

KILTY, C., 15th February, 1811.—On considering again the within petition,
together with the affidavit now annexed thereto: it is required and decreed,