108 SALMON v. CLAGETT—3 BLAND.

The answer should, in general, be sworn to; but must be allowed to have
full effect, as such, although made by one who is incompetent to give

Scotten, 59 Md. 73: Whalen v, Dalashmutt. Ibid, 230; Banks v. Busey, 34 Md.
438. Jurisdiction in equity depends not so much upon the absence of a com-
mon law remedy as upon its inadequacy. Bisp. Eq. 434; Harper's App., 2
Eastern Rep. 575. Where the rights involved are purely legal, equity will
interpose by injunction solely to protect the property until such rights can
be determined by a Court of law. and this protection will only be given in
cases where the mischief threatened or impending, is likely to be ruinous or
irreparable. Lanahan v. Gahan, 37 Md. 105.

As a general rule an injunction commands nothing to be done or to be
undone: its intention and operation is to preserve all things in the condition
in which it finds them until the equity can be heard and determined. Cape
Sable Co's Case. 3 Bland, 686.

A bill praying for an injunction must state a case which prima facie en-
titles the complainant to the relief prayed. Johnston v. Glenn, 40 Md. 200:
Com'rs v. Franklin Co. 45 Md. 473; Heck v. Remka. 47 Md. 68. And it must
make a full and candid disclosure of all the facts within the knowledge of
the complainant, on which his equity rests; there must be no concealment;
all the res gestae must be represented as they actually are. Reddall v. Bryan,
14 Md. 476, Canton Co. v. N. C. R'way Co. 21 Md. 383: Johnston v. Glenn. 40
Md. 200; Sprigg. Tel. Co. 46 Md. 75.'

Where ample justice can be done, equity will interfere to prevent multi-
plicity of suits, Holland v. Balto. 11 Md. 186 Sometimes the apprehended
danger is such as to justify the granting of an injunction. McCreery v.
Sutherland, 23 Md. 481. Cf. Myers v. Amey, 21 Md. 302: Fletcher v. Beaby.
28 Ch. D. 6i58. The Court frequently refuses an injunction where it ac-
knowledges a right when the conduct of the party complaining has led to
the state of things that occasions the application; but in most cases it is
sufficient that the question is important and doubtful. Binney's Case, 2
Bland. 99. As to mistake of law or fact as a ground for an injunction, see
Kearney v. Sascer, 37 Md. 264: Wood v. Patterson. 4 Md. Ch. 33.

Laches, delay, or acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff is often a bar to
relief by injunction R. R. v. Strauss, 37 Md. 388: Huyett v. Slick, 43 Md.
290: Balto. v. Grand Lodge, 44 Md. 432. The running of limitations is sus-
pended by the granting of an injunction. Little v. Price, 1 Md. Ch. 182.

Where a statute has made provision for all the circumstances of a particu-
lar case, no relief in equity can be afforded, although the provisions of the
statute may conflict with the notions of natural justice and equity enter-
tained by a Court of Chancery. Glenn v. Fowler. 8 G. & J. 847.

Injunctions will not be granted in doubtful or new cases not coming within
well established principles of equity. Hardesty v. Taft,23 Md. 530. But
the absence of precedent, though not to be overlooked entirely, does not, of
itself, determine questions of jurisdiction. Hamilton v. Whitridge, 11 Md. 143.

II. INJUNCTIONS AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY:

1. Trespass. An injunction will never be granted to restrain the commis-
sion of a mere trespass except in cases where the injury is irreparable and
destructive of the plaintiff's estate, for which adequate compensation cannot
be recovered at law. or is destructive of the property, in the character in
which it had been used, or to prevent a multiplicity of suits, or where pecu-
liar circumstances imperatively demand such a remedy. Amelung v. See-
kamp, 9 G. & J. 468, note (a); and, in addition to the cases there cited,
Baugher v. Crane, 27 Md. 36; Gilbert v. Arnold, 30 Md. 29; Frederick v. Gro-