CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.—3 BLAND. 603

unsatisfied; and that he caused writs of fieri facias to be issued
on them, as stated in the bill; that as to the judgments which
appear to have been confessed in actions of debt on the judgments
originally of Slye, Love, and the Barbers, in Baltimore County
Court on the 4th of June, 1824, they were obtained in consequence of
a misunderstanding of his attorney, and because he was ignorant,
that executions had previously issued to Anne Arundel County;
but those judgments will be vacated, or otherwise disposed of so
as to keep them harmless, in such manner as the Baltimore County
Court may, at its next term, direct. This defendant alleges, that
he is ignorant of the other matters stated in the bill; and he
denies all fraud, &c.

Upon these answers the case was brought be lore the Court on a
motion to dissolve the injunction.

BLAND, C., 10th November, 1824.—The motion to dissolve the
injunction standing ready for hearing, and the solicitors of the
parties having been fully heard, the proceedings were read and
considered.

This case has been gathered into the shape in which if. is now
presented to the Court in three separate parcels, commenced at
* three distinct periods. The first is that belonging to the 623
bill filed on the 6th of August, 1822; the second is that of

the bill of the 4th of January, 1823; and the last is that which
has been accumulated under the bill introduced to the Court on
the 10th of June, 1824. On each an injunction has been awarded;
and all have been combined, or in a manner consolidated by each
of the latter bills, invoking the prior bills and proceedings into
itself. The object of them all is to establish and protect the inte-
rest, which Ridout and Jubere claim, as trustees, for the use of
John Gibson's children, in the stock of the Cape Sable Company.
The present motion is to obtain a dissolution of the injunction
which has been granted on the last of these bills.

Upon a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances
which gave rise to the equity upon which this injunction was
granted, it appears, that the answers of the defendants, who make
the motion, have not so denied them as to displace any material
part of that foundation of i'act upon which this injunction rests.

Salmon v. Clagett, ante, 162. But it is a genera! rule, that where
there are two or more defendants, a motion to dissolve cannot be
heard until the answers of all of them come in. Eden Inj. 66;
Jones v. Magill, 1 Bland, 177. The Barbers, Slye, and Love, have
neither of tlieru yet answered; and it is highly probable, that they
may disclose facts of the greatest importance upon a motion of
this kind.

It is therefore ordered, that the injunction heretofore issued in
this case, be continued until the final hearing or further order.