132 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

the facts out of which the equity arose. Upon the motion to
dissolve, credit could only be given to the answer in so far as
it spoke of responsive matters, within the personal knowledge
of the defendant; and unless so speaking, the equity of the bill
was sworn away, the injunction could not be dissolved.

But the case is now before this court for final hearing, upon
bill, answer and evidence; and, although an answer founded
upon hearsay, though denying the complainant's equity, is not
to be treated as an answer resting upon personal knowledge, it
is certainly sufficient to put the complainant upon the proof of
the averments of his bill. And the question, therefore, is, has
he succeeded in establishing by evidence those averments, upon
which his title to the aid of this court depends.

With respect to the judgment at the suit of William McKim,
it is admitted by the solicitor of the complainant, that he has
made no defence, and therefore as to that, the injunction must
be dissolved.

And with regard to the judgment at suit of Brooks and Hotch-
kiss, the only attempt to make out an equity against it, is the
production of a receipt signed by D. G. Yost as their attorney,
to the trustees for $200, in part payment of the judgment, on
the 8th of July, 1840. This receipt of a part of the money from
the trustees, and the delay and forbearance to enforce payment
of the residue, is thought to afford a sufficient foundation for
interfering, as against these parties, all those circumstances
which, in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, would make it
fraudulent to allow them now to proceed to enforce their liens
against the land. I am not prepared to concur in this reason-
ing, and therefore as to this judgment, also,, the injunction must
be dissolved.

The argument before me was principally directed against the
judgments at suit of John Trimble and John W. Brown, which
appear to have been assigned, in the first place, to the Bank of
Baltimore, and afterwards by the bank to Mrs. Mason, and the
judgments at suit of Henry Tiffany, and William Tiffany and
others; which were by them also assigned to her.

With reference to the judgments at suit of Trimble and