410 McKIM v. ODOM.—3 BLAND.

between the same parties, to be issued after such dismissal or ter-
mination of the appeal, as leaves the injunction dissolved accord-
ing to the order appealed from. In this case, however, it appears
to me to be fit and proper, in order to prevent a vexatious renewal
or continuance of the injunction on a state of facts which has been
already considered and adjudicated upon; that the bill this day
filed, and now submitted, should be considered as an amendment
to that filed on the 23d of June, 1827; and that it should be so
taken and answered accordingly. But as it appears, that the new
facts set forth in this bill are chiefly, or altogether within the
knowledge of the defendants Law, Harrison, and Anderson, it is
therefore reasonable, that the injunction, to be issued after the
termination of the appeal, should be subject to a motion
414 *for a dissolution on the coming in of their answers thereto
aloue, in connexion with all the previous proceedings. Jones v.
Magill, 1 Bland, 177.

Therefore it is ordered, that upon the fact of the dismissal of
the said appeal, or other final termination thereof, whereby the
said injunction may be dissolved, being certified to the register of
this Court, an injunction be issued as prayed by the aforesaid bill
of complaint. And that subpoenas now issue as in case of an
amended bill. And it is further ordered, that at any time after
the defendants Law, Harrison, and Anderson, shall have filed
their answers to the said bill, the Court will hear a motion to dis-
solve the said injunction granted thereon; Provided, that ten days
notice thereof be given to the said complainants. And it is
further ordered, that a copy of this order be endorsed upon or
served with the said writ of injunction hereby directed to be is-
sued.

The appeal having been dismissed, an injunction was accordingly
issued as authorized by this order. After which the defendants
Law, Harrison, and Anderson, put in their answers separately to
this amended bill, in which they fully explained all the circum-
stances of the case, and positively denied the fraudulent transac-
tions as charged. The defendant Law denied that he was in a
condition of insolvency; but the defendant Harrison admitted that
he had obtained the benefit of the insolvent laws. Upon these
answers these defendants moved, according to the terms of the
order of the 20th of June, to dissolve the injunction.

BLAND, C., 4th September, 1828.—The motion for the dissolu-
tion of the injunction heretofore granted in this case, standing
ready for hearing, the solicitors of the parties were fully heard,
and the proceedings read and considered.

Upon the hearing of this motion, two affidavits were offered and
heard with a reservation as to the propriety of their being thus