McKIM v. ODOM.—3 BLAND. 405

wards and immediately on the arrival of the ship Cyane, the de-
fendant Law, by means of his bill of lading, obtained possession
of the specie remitted, had it exchanged in Philadelphia, and
thence transmitted to Baltimore, where he had the greater part of
it deposited in the Franklin Bank, in the name of the defendant
Anderson, in trust for his, Law's, use; that the object of the de-
fendant Law in withholding, and thus secretly depositing the
proceeds of sale, was fraudulently to compel the plaintiff McKim
to submit to certain unjust and improper charges, which he, Law,
as ship's husband, claimed a right to have allowed and deducted
from those proceeds. Upon which the plaintiffs prayed relief and
an injunction to stay the money so deposited in the hands of the
bank. An injunction was granted accordingly.

The defendants answered separately. Odom averred, that the
specie which he had remitted by the Cyane to Law, was not made
up exclusively of the proceeds of the sale of the schooner and her
earnings; but consisted, in a considerable part, of the proceeds of
the sale of certain merchandise in which the plaintiffs had no in-
terest, as was shewn by an account of Zimmerman, Frazier & Co.,
which he exhibited as a part of his answer; and he also averred,
that it had been agreed between him and the plaintiff Moore, then
the half owner of the vessel, before she sailed, that all remittances
should be made to the defendant Law, as ship's husband, who had
made sundry disbursements for the use of the vessel, which he had
a right to have allowed and repaid to him accordingly; and this
defendant denied all the charges of fraud, &c.

The defendants Law & Harrison answered to the same effect;
and positively denied the secret and improper disposition of the
specie received from the Cyane as charged; and averred, that it
was not held by the defendant Auderson for his, Law's, use, as
stated.

The defendant Anderson averred, that the sum deposited in the
bank was exclusively and properly his own; and he positively
denied all combination and fraud as charged in the bill.

And the bank in their answer averred, that the sum stood on
their books as a deposit belonging to the defendant Anderson,
and that they had no knowledge of any other circumstances men-
tioned in the bill.

*Upon these answers the defendants gave notice of a
motion to dissolve the injunction, which coming on to be 409
heard, the injunction was on the 15th of October, 1827, dissolved.
From which order the plaintiffs appealed. By a note in writing,
dated on the 7th of April, 1828, from W. H. Marriott, one of the
solicitors of the plaintiffs, addressed to the register, he says, that
after a careful examination of Law's answer, they had determined
to submit the case on bill and answer. The general replication,