SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 107

On a motion to dissolve, if the answer expressly denies all the facts stated
in the bill, or such a material part of them as leaves not enough to fur-
nish an equitable foundation for the injunction it must be dissolved. If,
on the other hand, the defendant does not deny, or omits to respond to
those facts which constitute the case on which the injunction rests, it
must be continued, (e)

(e) Distinguished in Belt v. Blackburn, 28 Md. 241.

INJUNCTIONS.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

II. INJUNCTIONS AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY,

1. Trespass. 2. Waste. 3. Nuisance. 4. Easements. 5. Ripa-
rian and Water Rights. 6. Pertaining to Condemnations. 7. Per-
taining to Clouds on Title. 8. Miscellaneous.

III. INJUNCTIONS AFFECTING STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND WAYS.

IV. INJUNCTIONS AFFECTING MORTGAGES AND PARTIES THERETO.

V. INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AT LAW.

VI. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST JUDGMENTS AND EXECUTIONS.

VII. INJUNCTIONS TO ENFORCE EQUITABLE SET-OFFS.
VIII. INJUNCTIONS IN BEHALF OF CREDITORS.

IX. INJUNCTIONS IN CONNEXION WITH RECEIVERS.

X. INJUNCTIONS IN AFFAIRS OF MUNICIPAL AND OTHER PUBLIC CORPO-
RATIONS.

XI. INJUNCTIONS IN AFFAIRS OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.

XII. INJUNCTIONS IN PARTNERSHIP AFFAIRS.

XIII. INJUNCTIONS TO PROTECT TRADE-MARKS.

XIV. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS.
XT. INJUNCTIONS PERTAINING TO CONTRACTS.

XVI. INJUNCTIONS IN CASES BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT.
XVII. MISCELLANEOUS CASES.

XVIII. MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.

XIX. PRACTICE.

1. Bill, Exhibits, Hearing, etc. 2. Interlocutory or Preliminary
Injunction. 3. Amendments. 4. Answer.

XX. SUSPENSION OF INJUNCTION BY GIVING BOND.

XXI. MOTION TO DISSOLVE AND DISSOLUTION.

XXII. VIOLATION OF INJUNCTIONS.

XXIII. APPEALS.

XXIV. BOND AND DAMAGES.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES.—The granting or refusing an injunction rests in
the sound discretion of a Court of equity: it is not a matter of absolute
right, but depends upon the particular facts of each case. Redd/all v. Bryan,
14 Md. 444; McCreery v. Sutherland, 23 Md. 480; Shoemaker v. Bank, 31 Md.
396: Kelly v. Piet, 53 Md. 135; Welde v. Scotten, 59 Md. 72. The most gene-
ral description of a Court of equity is, that it has jurisdiction in cases of
rights recognized and protected by the municipal jurisprudence, where a
plain, adequate and complete remedy cannot be had in the Courts of com-
mon law. The Chancery jurisdiction is sometimes concurrent with the juris-
diction of a Court of law; it is sometimes exclusive of it; and it is some-
times auxiliary to it. R. R. Co. v. R. R. Co.. 57 Md. 271. Equity will not
interpose by the extraordinary remedy of injunction if the law will afford
adequate relief, or if merely legal rights and questions are involved. Welde