104 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

THE CHANCELLOR:

It (the petition) alleges that the complainants in pursuance of
the injunction, entered upon, and took possession of the prop-
erty mentioned in the proceedings, to which the defendant
yielded, not being willing to appear even as offering any op-
position to the order of the court; and it prays, (the injunction
having been dissolved,) that an order may be passed restoring
the defendant to the possession of the property, so that the par-
ties may be placed in the positions they respectively occupied
when it was granted.

Upon the filing of this petition an order was passed, that
the matter thereof should stand for hearing on the second of
the present month, provided a copy was served on the opposite
party. This has been done, and the complainants have put in
an answer in which they contend that the whole effect of the
injunction has been to restrain the defendant from those pro-
ceedings, by which he interfered with the due exercise of the
rights, privileges and duties which the faculty and professors of
the university had been enjoying, and were required to be per-
formed,

It has been already stated, that the injunction in this case
went no further and was designed to go no further than to pro-
hibit Green, the defendant, from preventing the professors con-
stituting the medical faculty of the corporation, from such use
of the buildings and other property, as was necessary to enable
them to discharge their duties. The bill alleged that his con-
duct was such that these duties could no longer be performed,
and that he founded his title thus to interfere, upon bis judg-
ment in the ejectment suit, in the face of his agreement that
the execution of that judgment should be stayed until the de-
termination of the then depending chancery cause, of Conkling
and others vs. the Washington Medical University, and Green,
in which the relative rights of all the parties would be decided.

Green in his answer denied this statement, and averred that
the professors of the university had not been interrupted by him
in the performance of their duties, and that he had not taken
possession of the property in violation of the agreement upon