150 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

The plaintiff further alleges in his bill, that he did not know
what number of negroes, horses and cattle had been conveyed to
him by the mortgage; that he had reason to believe and therefore
charged, that the defendants, having it iu their power, contem-
plated and designed to sell and dispose of part, or the whole of
the said property, with a view to defeat his lien; that a discovery
of the specific property intended to be conveyed to him by the
mortgage was necessary and material for the protection of his inte-
rest; that a decree for the foreclosure of the mortgage, or a sale
of the said property, could not be had before the first of October,
1830, before which time, he was apprehensive that the defendants
would sell, dispose of, conceal, or remove the whole, or a part of
the said personal property, and thus jeopardize a part of his
claim; and that the goods, wares and merchandise, and debts
transferred to him by the agreement of the 26th of May, 1828,
would be wholly inadequate to the full payment of his claim; and
would leave a balance due to him of eight thousand dollars.
Upon which he prayed a discovery of the mortgaged property, and
for an injunction, prohibiting the defendants from selling, dispos-
ing of, removing or concealing the whole, or any part of the per-
sonal property of the said William Clagett, deceased, until further
order of this Court.

Whereupon, an injunction was granted as prayed, and issued
accordingly.

Alter all the defendants had answered, they filed and propounded
an interrogatory to the plaintiff, asking him whether the original
agreement of the 26th of May, 1828, as exhibited and filed with the
answer of Thomas Clagett was not the real agreement entered into
on the one part by Salmon as stated.

BLAND, C., 3rd September, 1828.—Ordered, that the plaintiff
Charles Salmon, make a full and sufficient answer to the foregoing
interrogatory on or before the first day of October next; provided,
that a copy of this order, together with a copy of the said interro-
gatory, be served on him on or before the thirteenth day of the
present month.

In obedience to which the plaintiff, by his solicitor, said, " the
complainant answers to the foregoing interrogatory, yes." This
answer was received without objection.

131 *The plaintiff excepted to the sufficiency of the answers
of the defendants; first, because they had not discovered
and set forth the number, nature and kind of the personal prop-
erty included in and conveyed by the mortgage. And in the next
place, because they neither denied, nor admitted the allegations
of the bill, that the personal property so mortgaged remained in
the possession of the defendants Elizabeth and Edmund, and was