188 JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND.

law, where there are necessarily several defendants, the Court
will not continue the restriction which has been imposed upon

for their belief or knowledge of facts. In this case they state such contra-
dictory circumstances as give room to doubt their knowledge of them.

The bill states, that the £300, for which the plaintiff gave his bond, was
the half of the purchase money. The answer, without a positive denial of
that fact, speaks of it as the whole consideration. The defendants allege,
that the £200. received by Oliver from Tong, included the £32 lien on the
Pennsylvania tract; and they afterwards state, that Tong purchased the
land subject to that incumbrance. and many others; and the argumentative
part of their answer, as to the £300. has been already noticed. They further
allege, that they believe the £32 was taken into consideration in long's bond
to Abbot; and, that they knew it was deducted in the bond given to Oliver.
So that, according to their statement, this sum has been twice allowed:
although the land was sold subject to it.

It appears on the whole, that it will be the most equitable course to con-
tinue the injunction till final hearing or further order, with a view to ascer-
tain the real state of the transaction; and it is ordered to be continued ac-
cordingly.

After which the responding defendants, with a view to urge forward the
plaintiff to extract an answer from the defendant Oliver, or to bring the
case to a final hearing, called on the Court to compel him to proceed.

KILTY, C., 29th December, 1809.—On application of the defendants, rule
further proceedings by the fourth day of February, 1810: provided a copy
of this order be served on the complainant, or his counsel, before the first
day of February next.

On the part of the responding defendants, the case was afterwards again
submitted to the Court on notes by the defendants' solicitor, in which it was
stated, that this cause stands under a rule further proceedings, which ex-
pired on the fourth day of February Term: that Oliver had not answered,
and the responding defendants had no means of compelling him to answer.
Upon this state of the case the defendants, who had answered, prayed a dis-
missal under the rule: or that the injunction be dissolved, upon such terms
as the Chancellor may deem proper.

KILTY, C., 7th April, 1810.—On that part of this application, praying for a
dissolution of the injunction on the former notice, the Chancellor refers to
his order of the first of March, 1809. On that part praying for a dismissal
on the rule, the Chancellor considers the session of the Court is not at
present open for such a motion. And on the application in writing by the
counsel for the complainant, it is ordered that a commission issue to the
persons named by him, unless commissioners are named by the defendant
so as to be struck before the first day of May nest. Provided a copy of this
order be served on the defendant's counsel before the 30th inst.

After which a commission was issued, testimony taken, and the case sub-
mitted for final hearing; without the answer of the defendant Oliver.

KILTY, C., 23d May, 1810.—The commission, which was ordered, at the
present term, has been returned, and the case is submitted for final hearing;
an abstract being made on the part of the defendants.

Although the real state of the transaction is not discovered very clear from
the proceedings; yet, as it appears in proof, that the complainant refused