SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 179

those facts stated in the bill, producing that equity on which the
injunction was awarded. In one case, reported among the English
adjudications, it is laid down as a general rule, that where a plain
equity set forth by the bill is admitted by the answer; but en-
deavored to be avoided by another fact, the injunction shall always
be continued to the hearing. Allen v. Crabcroft,Barnartdiston Ch.
Rep. 373.

This, unquestionably, is the rule by which this Court is governed
on a motion to dissolve, made on the coming in of the answer. It
appears to me to be according to the reason of the thing; Minturn
v. Seymour, 4 John. C. C. 499; and I am much inclined to believe,
that this very case has been mainly instrumental in establishing
that rule iu this Court. But it is not mentioned in any English
abridgment, digest, compilation, or book, other than that book
wherein it is reported; which Lord Mansfield absolutely forbid from
being cited; declaring, that there was not one case in it which was
right throughout. Zouch v. Woolston, 2 Burr, 1142, n; Boardman
v. Jackson, 2 Ball & Bea. 386. Hence there is reason to believe,
that although this case must be admitted as right throughout here,
it may not be deemed so in England. Williams v. Hall, 1 Bland,
195, n.

In this Court, the question presented, on a motion to dissolve,
on the coming in of the answer, is not one which always or neces-
sarily * involves the merits of the whole case, as set forth in
the bill; it maybe, and not unfrequently is, much narrower; 163
because this Court recognizes the distinctions between the case on
which the injunction rests; the material head of equity which
entitles the plaintiff to an injunction; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 226; and
that which forms the whole foundation of his prayer for relief;
which, although often, are not necessarily one and the same case;
and therefore, this question, on a motion to dissolve, properly
extends only to the equitable grounds of the injunction and no
further. Doe v, Roe, 1 Hopk. Rep. 276.

If the answer expressly denies all the facts stated in the bill, or
such a material part of them as leaves not enough to furnish an
equitable foundation for the injunction; it must be dissolved. If, no
the other hand, the defendant does not deny, or omits to respond to
those facts which constitute the case on which the injunction rests;
it must be continued. Hence, no matter, advanced by way of
avoidance in the answer, is to have any weight on a motion to
dissolve, any more than if it had been adduced in the form of a
plea. Such matter in either shape, if sustained by proof, or ad-
mitted by setting the case down for final decision on bill and
answer, may be a sufficient defence at the hearing, but it cannot,
in either of those modes, be shewn as cause for dissolving the in-
junction on an interlocutory motion made for that purpose. Simson