INDEX. 569

INADEQUACY OF PRICE— Continued.

erty had been enhanced, could have but little weight in determining
whether the property previously -sold at a price so much below its
value as to indicate a want of reasonable judgment in the trustee.
Gibbs vs. Cunmngham, 44.

4. But where any other just cauae appears to doubt the propriety of the
sale, it is a consideration very proper to be viewed, in connection with
it, that the sale was made at a reduced price. -Hmtze vs. Stingel, 383.

5. It appearing that the defendant, who was a German, and imperfectly
acquainted with our language, called upon the trustee a few days be-
fore the sale, for information as to the day of sale, and that either the
trustee incautiously misinformed him on the subject, or that he mis-
understood the trustee, owing to his imperfect knowledge of the Eng-
lish language, and that a bidder, who would give nearly twice the
amount for which the property was struck off, was kept from attend-
ing the sale, by the information which he received from the defend-
ant, upon these circumstances and the concurrence of the complainant
in the application, the sale was set aside. /!>.

6. Inadequacy of price may be so gross as to induce the court to set aside

a conveyance actually made. Hollis vs. Hollis, 479.
See SALES BY TRUSTEES, 3 to 5.
INJUNCTION.

1. If a mortgagor in possession, is committing waste, equity will restrain
him by injunction. Brown, vs. Stewart, 87.

2. Where a mortgagee files a bill for the sale of the mortgaged property
for the satisfaction of his debt then due, and alleges, that, it being in
possession of the mortgagor, has been, or is about to be wasted ;

or where it consists of personalty, is about to be removed beyond the
the reach of the creditor, a court of equity has, and will, exercise the
power of preventing the threatened mischief by injunction. S).

3. When a motion to dissolve an injunction is heard on bill and answer, so
much of the bill as is not denied by the answer, is taken for true, and
if one of its material allegations remain unanswered, the injunction
will be continued till the final hearing. III.

4. An injunction, unless issued after the decree, when it becomes a judi-
cial process, can only be used for the purpose of prevention and pro-
tection, and not for the purpose of commanding the defendant to undo
any thing he had previously done. Wtahwigiwt Oniver-iity cf Baltimore
vs. Grew,, 97.

5. The bill alleges that the buildings on the grounds in question, were used
for the purpose of giving medical instruction, and as an infirmary for
the sick, by the professors composing the medical faculty of the cor-
poration, and prays that the defendant may be restrained from so act-
ing as to interfere with their possession and use for that purpose, and
that he be commanded to forbear from the repetition of the acts which
impeded the enjoyment of the rights and the discharge of the duties
on the part of the professors. HELD—
That an injunction of this description cannot be regarded as going

48*