HALL v. McPHERSON.—3 BLAiND. 521

tended for his benefit; and to allow him time to deliberate, and to
move in the most circumspect manner in the defence of bis rights;
and being for his advantage only, he may waive them all; and, as
in this instance, come in and answer instantly. By doing so he
accelerates the progress of the case which must be for the advan-
tage of him who complains of a delay or denial of right. This
plaintiff may now except to this answer, set the case down to be
heard on bill and answer, or put in a general replication and pro-
ceed forthwith to take testimony. In short any defendant to a
bill *of complaint in this Court may appear gratis and get
rid of the suit as soon as he can. Fell v. The Master of 532
Christ's College, 2 Bro. C. C. 278; Hnmcarst v. Welleter. 5 Mad.
422; Webster v. Threffall,1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 07.

But it is said, that this is an injunction bill, and an injunction,
if allowable at all, is always granted ex parte on a consideration of
the bill alone. This practice has, however, arisen out of the cir-
cumstances of our country, and the peculiar urgency of such cases.
The exigencies of the case, as set forth by the plaintiff, in his bill,
may be, and most commonly are, such as to call for immediate
interposition; and therefore, the Chancellor must act on the repre-
sentation of one party only. But in all such cases the opposite
party is allowed an early opportunity of being heard; and if the
nature of the case require it, the manner and time of his being
heard is unusually facilitated and shortened. But if a defendant
should hear of such a bill being on its way to the Chancellor, it
does not seem to me, that there can be any sound regulation which
should hinder him from following the bill to the tribunal, and in-
stantly presenting his answer so as to prevent the imposition of
the threatened restriction. An injunction may be dissolved on
the coming in of an answer which positively denies all the facts.
upon which the equity of the bill is founded; hence it would be
strange indeed to refuse to look at such an answer presented to-
gether with the bill, and to grant an injunction which must soon,
and inevitably be dissolved. I am therefore of opinion, that this.
answer must be now read and considered. Upon which it will be
sufficient to remark, that on the bill alone I should have doubted
the propriety of granting an injunction; but upon looking into
the answer I can have no doubt.

Ordered, that no injunction be issued as prayed by this bill of
complaint.

The plaintiff put in a general replication to the defendant's
answer; and some time after brought the case before the Court by
moving for a decree to account.

BLAND, C., 27th July, 1826.—Decreed, that the parties account
with each other; and the case is hereby referred to the auditor.