178 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

One of the articles of impeachment against Cardinal Woodsey
was, that he, as Chancellor, had granted injunctions without any
bill being put in. 4 Inst. 92. And Lord Bacon, in reply to the
king's instructions, pledged himself not to grant injunctions on the
mere statement of the bill, but only on matter confessed by the de-
fendant's answer; unless called for by pressing circumstances.
Park His. Co. Cha. 82. After which, it was declared, by a statute
which is in force here, that no subpoena or any other process,
except injunctions, to stay waste or proceedings at law, should be
granted before a bill was filed. 4 Ann, ch. 16, s. 22. But, during
the Provincial government, it appears to have been the practice to
giant an injunction to stay proceeding at law, before the filing of
the bill; upon a petition briefly stating the circumstances; and that
too, as it would seem, without any affidavit, or other evidence of
the truth of the matters so stated. In which case the petition
prayed an injunction until the matter could be heard on a bill to
be filed, setting forth the facts more at large; and the bill, after-
wards filed, prayed a continuance of the injunction as granted.
Powell v. Speake, 1760, per SHARP, Chancellor, Chancery Proceed-
ings, lib. D. D. No. J, 83. This course of proceeding was, no
doubt, adopted on the ground of analogy to the English mode of
granting an injunction in some cases for a similar purpose on an
affidavit stating the facts of the case before the filing of the bill.
Eden Inj. 36, 231. But I have met with no instance of this kind
since the establishment of the Republic.

According to the present course of proceeding, in this Court,
there is but one mode of obtaining an original injunction; and
that is by a bill. To lay a proper foundation for an injunction, the
*bill should set forth a case of plain right, and a probable
161 danger that the right would be defeated without the inter-
position of this Court; Anonymous, 1 Vern. 120; The State of
Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 405; or it should appear, that the
question was important and doubtful; Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Ves.
636; and the truth of the facts should be verified by an affidavit
which is usually made by the plaintiff himself, or by one of the
plaintiffs if there be more than one. That, however, is not essen-
tial; for, 1 have granted an injunction when the bill was sworn to
by an agent of the plaintiff who was privy to the transaction, the
plaintiff being a foreigner and resident abroad. Dunlop v. Harrison,
28 September, 1826. Indeed, an affidavit of any one does not
appear to be indispensably necessary; if documentary, or any other
kind of evidence be produced, sufficient to cause belief, and to in-
duce the Court to trust the bill for the truth of its statements.
Schermehorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. 364.

Having thus far placed confidence in the bin, that confidence
will not be withdrawn until the coming in of the answer, in which
the defendant is expected to respond clearly and distinctly to all