McKIM v. ODOM.— 3 BLAND. 409

BLAND, C., 16th May, 1828.—The petition of the plaintiffs, this
day filed, having been submitted, has been read and considered.

The time limited for taking and returning testimony in relation
to the accounts directed to be stated by the interlocutory decree of
the 14th of April last, was. as is usual in cases where there is
nothing in the proceedings from which what may be deemed a
reasonable time for that purpose can be inferred, and the parties
have not been heard upon that subject, fixed at a very short period.
And therefore I did not consider it proper on the 12th instant to
exact from the party, on that, his first application for an extension
of the time, such strict proof of the necessity of having it enlarged,
as I should have done on a second application of the same nature,
or as would be required to obtain the continuance of a case stand-
ing regularly for hearing; therefore it is ordered, that the afore-
said petition be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.

On the 20th of June, 1828, these plaintiffs filed another bill
against these same defendants, in which the ownership, voyage,
* and sale of the schooner Beauty, is set forth as in the first
bill; and after stating as belore, that the proceeds of sale 413
were remitted by the Cyane, the plaintiffs aver by this bill, that
the specie was received from the Cyane by the defendant Ander-
son, as the agent of the defendant Law; and that Anderson had
carried it to Philadelphia, and covertly transmitted the whole or
the greater part of it thence to Baltimore, where he had fraudu-
lently deposited it in the Franklin Bank in his own name. The
particulars of which alleged fraudulent transactions are fully de-
scribed in the bill, in which it is alleged, that they were not known
to the plaintiffs when they filed their first bill. And it is further
alleged, that the defendant Law is insolvent and unable to pay his
debts; and that the defendant Harrison had been actually dis-
charged under the insolvent law. Whereupon the plaintiffs prayed
that upon the dismissal of their appeal from the order of the 15th
October last; and of their bill filed on the 23d of June, 1827, an
injunction might be granted upon this bill to prevent the proceeds
from being removed from the bank in which they had been de-
posited by the defendant Anderson; and for general relief, &c.

BLAND, C., 20th June, 1828.—I would have it distinctly under-
stood, that I disclaim the power to pass any order relative to a
subject-matter appealed from, pending an appeal by virtue of
which the power of this Court, in relation to such subject, may or
can be decided by the Court of Appeals, to have been suspended.
But I am of opinion, not however, without some doubt, that I
may be allowed, pending an appeal from an interlocutory order
dissolving an injunction, made on the bill and answer alone, to
grant another injunction upon a bill in nature of an amended bill