314 CHASE v. MANHARDT.—1 BLAND.

It is true, that the present complainant had it in his power to
contest the suit more fully than he has done, and if he was con-
cluded by his neglect, there would be an end of the case. But
wherever there is an agreement to allow for payments or deduc-
tions, it furnishes a ground for the interference, of a Court of
equity. And so where a verdict is entered by surprise or mistake,
the latter of which is admitted in this case. And the Court of
Appeals has gone much further in relieving against the verdict of
a jury, or the confession of judgment.

In noticing the answers of the counsel in the suit at Jaw, I have
to observe, that I am not satisfied as to the necessity of making
them parties to this suit; and if they were proper parties, they were
not bound to answer beyond what related to themselves. But as
to all the answers, in a motion to dissolve an injunction, the facts
set forth alone are to be considered as established thereby, and
not the opinions or conclusions of law drawn by the defendants
from the facts; much less the reasoning in them.

It is a ground of equity in the bill, that Chase was not bound to
give his notes, or make payment of the $0,000 to Bryden, until the
previous conditions were complied with. The tender of value, &c.
on behalf of Bryden, does not affect this equity, inasmuch as it
was accompanied by a demand of the notes, which, after the at-
tachment was laid, he had no right to demand. As to Manhai'dt
himself, (independent of the verdict irregularly entered,) sup-
posing the claim to have been such as could be attached, he had
no right to be put in a better situation than Bryden, or to put
Chase in a worse situation as to the debt, or as to the terms on
which it was to be paid. If the injunction should now be dis-
solved, after deducting the excess in the verdict, as proposed by
the counsel for Manhardt, the complainant might be left without
remedy, if the instruments of writing, now filed, should be insuffi-
cient; which will be a question proper to be determined on final
hearing. But the complainant claims also a deduction of the in
terest charged in the verdict; on wrhich, though it was not consid-
ered as the ground for the injunction in the order passed, he has a
right to a decision, as it is not admitted, but strongly contested.

This brings the case within the rule laid down in the suit by
336 Colgate against Lynch, 2 H. & J. 34; that when a proper
ground for the injunction is admitted by the answer, and there
still remains a dispute between the parties, the injunction is uni-
versally continued. Here the admission is made by the answer of
D. Hoffman, read and relied on by himself as counsel for Man-
hardt, thereby removing the exception to it as evidence against
Manhardt; and the mistake and over-charge was admitted by him
in the argument, which would be within the same reason.

It is thereupon adjudged and ordered, that the injunction be
and the same is hereby continued till final hearing or further
order.