152 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

has always seemed to me, that a defendant, who had manifestly
omitted to answer, or had answered evasively any substantial part
of the bill, not blended with that which peculiarly related to the
grounds of the injunction, would come with a very ill grace to ask
for its dissolution. The Court expects from every one, seeking re-
lief, unreserved frankness; and he who evidently and purposely
holds back something cannot complain if he should nnd himself
regarded with suspicion and distrust, and be refused that to which
he may, in truth, be entitled; and under other appearances might
have obtained.

On a motion to dissolve, on the coming in of the answer, the
Court is confined absolutely to the bill and answer. The answer,
at least so far as it is responsive to the bill, is to be taken for true.
No ?x parte affidavits, or other proofs, are ever admitted at that
stage of the case, in support of either the bill or answer.(f) The
discussion is confined within a narrow compass, as to facts and
circumstances; and neither party can be taken by surprise; be-
cause the notice of the motion has given them both time to meet
and repel any unfounded objection to their allegations; all of which,
upon the hearing of that critical, and often all-important motion,
should be found to be such as will stand the test of the closest aud
severest scrutiny,

But however it may be in the English Courts, in this particular;
Eden Inj. 73, 78; it has long been the practice of this Court to
hear and decide upon the motion to dissolve, and the exceptions
133 on to the * answer at the same time; Alexander v. Alexander,

13 December, 1817; Gibson v. Tilton, 1 Bland, 353; and I
shall, hereafter, consider it as finally settled here, that the motion
to dissolve, and all exceptions to the answer, which may then be
filed, shall be taken up and decided upon at the same time; not,
however, denying to the plaintiff* the right, for the purpose of
obtaining asufficient answer to the full extent required by the bill,
to except to the answer within the proper time, after the motion
for a dissolution of the injunction has been disposed of.

On the part of the defendants, it has been urged that although
they have admitted the execution of the mortgage, thej are enti-
tled to a dissolution of the injunction; and also to have the ex-
ceptions overruled; because they have fully denied all the equity
of the bill, by shewing, that the mortgage was invalid, or had
been satisfied, or had been virtually relinquished and abandoned;
or because one of the alleged mortgagors was an iniaut at the time
he executed the deed. These allegations, they maintain, are, in
themselves, an ample denial of the equity of the bill, aud consti-

(f) It has been since provided, that the Court may order testimony in
reference to the allegations of the bill to be taken, so that it be returned on
the day when the motion shall be heard, 1835, ch. 380, s. 8.