WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY VS. GREEN. 105

which the judgment was confessed. And upon the faith of
these denials the injunction was dissolved.

It would appear to be obvious from the answer of Green,
that he meant to be understood as saying that his possession of
the property, however held, was not incompatible with such
use and enjoyment thereof by the professors as was indispen-
sable to the fulfilment of their duties; for he says, that during
all the time he was in the possession, they continued in the dis-
charge of their several duties. In this state of the case it is
not very clearly perceived, what sort of possession it is to which
the defendant asks to be restored. According to the theory
of the answer, the possession of Green was perfectly consistent
with the use of the buildings by the professors, and it was with
that use alone that he was prohibited by the injunction from in-
terfering. If he desires now a more exclusive possession, so
as to interfere with, or prevent the professors from performing
their duties, he asks for that, which if avowed in his answer
to the bill, would have caused the injunction to be continued.
It certainly cannot be tolerated, that the dissolution of an in-
junction shall be procured by stating that the party who procures
such dissolution has done nothing and means to do nothing in-
jurious to the rights of others, and then after succeeding, that
he shall be allowed to do the very acts which he had disclaimed
having done, or intending to do.

The bill in this case indulged in a strain of severe and highly
colored animadversion upon the conduct of the defendant, but
when this was denied by the answer, no attempt was made to
prove it, though an order to take evidence passed at the instance
of the complainant.

This was significant, and entitled as I thought to some con-
sideration upon the motion to dissolve.

The answer stated—you have unjustly assailed me—I have
been guilty of no violence, no misconduct of any sort; nor have
I, nor do I mean to interrupt you in performing your duties.
Upon this the injunction was dissolved; but after the dissolu-
tion, an application is made for the restoration of rights which
the injunction was never intended to take away, and the asser-