BILLINGSLEA v. GILBERT.—1 BLAND. 531

In this case the bill itself states, that the plaintiffs are non-resi-
dents, and, consequently, the answers and subsequent proceedings
of the defendants have amounted to a waiver of the right on their
part to lay the plaintiffs under a rule to give security for costs.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the petition of the defendants be
and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.

This case was afterwards entered agreed.

* BlLLINGSLEA v. GILBERT. 566
INJUNCTION BONDS.—CHANCERY PRACTICE.

The penalty of an injunction bond to stay proceedings at Jaw should be at
least double the amount of the debt and interest then due. (a)

An answer to a bill in Cbancery may, by consent, be received without oath.

On its being shewn, that the dissolution of an injunction has been irregu-
larly and improperly obtained it may be revived.

It appears that the late William Billingslea, on the 9th March,
1821, filed his bill here praying lor an injunction to stay proceed-
ings at law instituted against him by Jarvis Gilbert; and in the
same month Billingslea filed a supplemental bill against Gilbert,
in like manner praying for an injunction.

KILTY, C., 19th March, 1821.—The penalty of the injunction
bond, 2,000 dollars, is nor sufficient. It should be double, the
amount of the debt which is £600 and the interest thereon, ex-
cepting what has been paid.

After which another bond was filed and submitted.

KILTY, C., 4th April, 1821.—The penalty of the injunction bond
now filed is still insufficient. The interest after deducting the pay-
ments made is nearly 1,516 dollars. The penalty should be double
the aggregate of principal and interest, and the safest way is to
make it somewhat more. When the injunction issues it will only
be to stay the execution, and not to prevent the having a trial or
obtaining a judgment, (b)

(a) See Salmon v. Clagett; 3 Bland, 125.

(b) YANCE v. SHORT.—1788.—Answer filed; rule on the plaintiff to shew
cause on the first day of July next why he should not give better security
to prosecute his injunction with effect. Also notice of motion to dissolve
the injunction next Court.—Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. let. B, fol. 354.

SWEENY v. EODGBRS.—1790.—Rule on the complainant to file a new bond
with sufficient surety by the 18th of October Dext, or the injunction be dis-
solved.— Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. let. C,fol. 400.

ONION v. McCOMAS.—KILTY, C., MS. 1813.—Where the surety of an injunc-
tion bond is, or has become insufficient, as being an infant or having become