102 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

purpose of commanding the defendant to undo any thing he
had previously done.

The injunction then being, as I think, properly issued, and
for a purpose within the fair scope and object of the power of
the court to interpose for the protection of rights unjustifiably
invaded, it remains to be considered, how far the grounds upon
which it issued have been removed by the answer of the de-
fendant, the rule being, that if the answer swears away or de-
nies all the equity of the bill, the injunction must be dissolved.

The equity of this bill consisted in the alleged violation by
Green, of the agreement upon which the judgment in the eject-
ment suit by him against Hill, was confessed, and in the im-
puted violence with which he drove away, and continued to
exclude the professors from the enjoyment of the privileges,
and the discharge of the philanthropic and important duties
with which they were charged. It appeared to me that unless
the court interposed to prohibit such conduct, the defendant
would not only be permitted to get a most unconscientious ad-
vantage of a judgment, against the letter and spirit of the terms
upon which it was confessed, but that the most grievous and
irreparable injury would be inflicted upon others, by his lawless
proceedings. The gravamen of the bill, was the violation
of the agreement as charged, and I am of opinion, if the answer
denies, plainly and positively, this averment, and further de-
nies that the defendant has in any manner obstructed or inter-
fered with the professors in the performance of their important
duties, in imparting medical knowledge, and attending upon
the sick, that upon the principle which governs this court upon
motions to dissolve, the injunction cannot be maintained.

Now the answer does deny that the defendant took posses-
sion in violation of his agreement, or by the use of force and
violence of any description, or that he has obstructed or inter-
fered with the professors in their attendance upon the sick
at the institution; and asserts that during all the time that de-
fendant was in possession thereof, they were in daily attend-
ance upon the sick, who were constantly provided with the
necessary and accustomed nourishment and medicines.