SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 151

used for the common benefit of themselves and the other de-
fendants.

The defendants having given notice of their motion to dis-
solve the injunction; the hearing of the exceptions to the answer
and of the motion to dissolve were brought on and argued to-
gether.

BLAND, C., 8th November, 1828.—The motion to dissolve the in-
junction standing ready for hearing the solicitors of the parties
were heard and the proceedings read and considered.

The defendants by their answers, all admit the execution of the
mortgage, but they say, that it is utterly invalid, as regards the
personal estate; because it purports to be a pledge or lien given
by an administratrix of personal property which she held only as
such; and could not lawfully mortgage for any such purpose. But,
supposing the mortgage to have been valid, in its origin; then,
they say, that certain claims and property were transferred and
delivered over to the plaintiff, from which he has, or might have
obtained full satisfaction of his claim; and therefore, that the mort-
gage is satisfied: or, if it be neither wholly invalid, nor satisfied,
then it has been released and discharged; because, by the agree-
ment of the 26th of May, 1828, the terms of the mortgage contract
have been so altered, to the prejudice of those of the mortgagors,
who were the mere sureties of the defendant Thomas Clagett, as
to have annulled it altogether; and further, the defendant Richard
H. Clagett, in his answer, avers and relies upon the fact as a de-
fence, that he was an infant at the time the mortgage was executed
by him.

The defendants' motion to dissolve the injunction, being called
up to be heard, the plaintiff, ou coming in to shew cause, proposed,
at the same time, to shew, as cause why the injunction should not
be dissolved, the validity of his exceptions; and to have them con-
sidered and decided upon, together with the motion to dissolve.
The defendants objected to this course, on the ground, that there
was not, in every instance, nor in this, a necessary * connec-
tion between the motion to dissolve, and exceptions to the 132
answers. Doe v. Roe, 1 Hopkins' Rep. 276.

It is, in general, true, that if the answer is in any respect insuffi-
cient, the injunction cannot be dissolved on the motion which the
defendant has a right to make on filing it. Yet, an answer may
be only exceptionable in those parts which are not, necessarily,
connected with so much of the case as gives rise to the equity
upon which the injunction rests; and therefore, as in such cases,
a flecision upon the motion does not involve a consideration of the
other defective and exceptionable portions of the answer; excep-
tions to those parts of it may, without needless repetitions of the
same argument, be separately considered and determined. But it