100 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

not;) as dividends had never been declared by the corporate
authorities, nor had any profits been earned. But that whilst
maintaining his right to the premises, he denied obstructing the
faculty or professors in tending the sick, they having been
daily in attendance whilst he was in possession. That the resi-
dent professor continued to perform his duties all the time,
and the sick were provided with necessaries at his (Green's)
expense. That, as to his forcible entry on the 2d of August, he
only took such measures as are necessary to the preservation
of property in large cities. That, in his answer, filed in the
other suit against him, he had exposed the invalidity of the
claim of the trustees, and the answer of the said university,
filed in the same case, also, opposed and denied it; although
it might suit the succeeding faculty to deny the admissions
of their predecessors, who were fully cognizant of the facts
of the case, and to seek by union with the trustees, to benefit
themselves, whilst they failed to keep down the current ex-
penses of the institution, or to apply any thing to the repair of
the property. That none of the members of the institution had
sworn to the bill, and that the only one of them who had any
interest in the concern refused to join in the suit. And that
the title of the complainants, if any they had, was a legal one,
and to be asserted at law, not in chancery.

On the coming in of this answer, a motion was made to dis-
solve the injunction, which was argued before the Chancellor,
who delivered the following opinion ;]

THE CHANCELLOR:

One of the grounds taken by the defendant against the con-
tinuance of this injunction is, that it transcends the limits usu-
ally assigned to this preventive process of the court. That the
injunction in this case, instead of simply prohibiting an act to
be done, injurious to the rights of the complainants, and
leaving things in their then condition, passes beyond this
boundary, and commands an act to be undone which had been
consummated prior to the filing of the bill. Such, however, was
not, nor is it now, my understanding of the extent to which