CHASE v. MANHARDT.—1 BLAND. 313

as the nature of his case required. After which the plaintiff filed
an injunction bond, when, on the 16th of January, 1819, an
* injunction was granted as prayed. Some time after the de-
fendants having answered, gave notice of a motion to dissolve 334
the injunction. The particular circumstances of the case sufficiently
appear in the opinions delivered by the Chancellors.

KILTY, C., 31st March, 1821.—The motion to dissolve the injunc-
tion in this case, came on to be heard according to notice, and was
argued by counsel for Manhardt, (the said counsel having also been
made a defendant;) and by the complainant in proper per-
son.

On considering the bill, answers and exhibits, I am of opinion,
that the equity of the bill is not denied or destroyed; and that the
defendant Manhardt is not entitled to a dissolution of this injunc-
tion. It is apparent from the answer of Manhardt, that he relies
on the verdict, or his statement of the course of law by which the
sum due from the complainant was ascertained, for the amount
thereof; which amount he was clearly mistaken in. His debt
against Bryden was $6,654, in 1818; making, with the interest,
$9,326.62. But Chase's debt to Bryden could, at most, have been
only $6,000, with interest from 1812. And it was admitted in the
argument, that there was a mistake of several hundred dollars by
the jury's finding a verdict for the sum due from Bryden, instead
of the sum due from Chase as garnishee. Manhardt states his
information and belief, that the verdict and judgment at law were
obtained upon a full and fair trial upon competent evidence; and
he denies, that he authorized his counsel to relinquish any part due
on the verdict.

As to the first point, it appears from the answer of J. Purviance,
Esq'r, to which no objection has been made, that the trial was not
"a full one, nor in the ordinary course where a serious opposition is
intended; but that he permitted a verdict to be entered for what
he supposed to be the balance of principal and interest; and not
alleging, that he was regularly the counsel of the complainant,
though he was of Brydeu.

As to the second point, J. Purviauce states in his answer,
that he was ready to wait on D. Hoffman, Esq'r, counsel for Man-
hardt, to correct any errors, and D. Hoffman states his belief, that
he informed the complainant the excess, if any in the verdict,
would not be claimed; which, as counsel for Manhardt, he had a
right to do. And it appears by his answer, that the verdict was
rendered for the amount supposed to be due, to wit, $6,654, prin-
cipal, with interest from 1808, which were the sums due from Bry-
den * to Mauhardt, and not the sum due from Chase to Bry-
den. This part of the answer is not a denial of the equity 335
of the bill in that particular.