JONES v. MAG1LL.—1 BLAND. 189

one of * them, unless the plaintiff shews, that he is using
all due diligence to have all the others brought before the
Court. Gow. Part. 179.

These defendants, who now ask for a dissolution of this injunc-
tion, have not yet, by a rule further proceedings, required the
plaintiff to prosecute her suit without delay; and consequently,
they cannot justly complain of the injunction being continued until
the filing of the answer of the defendant Gittings; which it is evi-
dent, may bring into the case an acknowledgment of facts, that
may go far to sustain, if not entirely to support the equity upon
which the plaintiff's injunction rests. Hence, as there is now no
ground to impute to the plaintiff any unreasonable neglect in the
prosecution of her suit; and the answer of a defendant, under
whom this creditor, Magill, claims, who, it is admitted, can speak
from his own knowledge of some of the material facts charged in
the bill, has not yet been put in: the hearing of the motion to dis-
solve cannot be taken up until his answer has been brought in; or,
until it may be inferred, from the laches of the plaintiff, in not
endeavoring to have it brought in, that it would contain nothing
likely to sustain her case, or until such implied notice of the bill
has been given to the non-responding defendant, if he be not resi-
dent within the State, as will enable the Court to proceed without
his answer. (1)

to produce the agreement, thereby adding weight to the testimony of Peter
Snyder respecting it, it is not considered necessary to continue the injunc-
tion in force. Whereupon it is decreed, that the injunction be dissolved,
and the bill dismissed, but without costs.

(1) PAUL v. NIXON.—This bill was filed on the 25th of August, 1796, by
John Paul against John Nixon, Benjamin Fuller. John Donaldson and
David H. Cunningham, surviving executors of William West. The hill
states, that the plaintiff had, on the 23d of December, 1777, given his bond
to the defendants' testator, with a condition for the payment of the sum of
four hundred pounds, which he signed without reflection as to the interest
reserved; that to correct the mistake in this respect, the defendants' testa-
tor, soon afterwards, signed and delivered to the plaintiff a written agree-
ment, whereby he, the obligee, agreed that he would demand no more than
three per cent, per annum until the debt was paid; that this agreement the
plaintiff had lost; that the defendants had brought suit and obtained judg-
ment for the whole amount, with legal interest, without giving him credit
for certain payments, which he had made: and without having the sum
really due adjusted, according to the terms upon which the judgment was
given, which were, that the amount of interest accruing on the bond should
be ascertained by William McLaughlin.

Whereupon, the plaintiff prayed for an injunction to stay the proceedings
at law, &c., which was granted as prayed.

The defendants put in their answer, in which they admit, that they had
obtained a judgment as stated; and as to the agreement, they aver that they
have no knowledge of it; but they say, that they verify believe, that there
never was any such instrument of writing made by their testator. In regard