WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY VS. GREEN. 99

of his agreement—the foundation of the judgment—violently
entered said buildings and drove out the professors engaged in
instruction, and in tending the sick; and emboldened by the
advice of counsel, he persisted in preventing them from enter-
ing, in discharge of their duties, although there was there much
valuable property belonging to them and others connected with
the institution.

The bill concluded with a prayer for an injunction, the na-
ture and extent of which is set forth by the Chancellor in his
opinion; and for general relief.

An injunction was immediately granted upon this bill, and
afterwards the defendant filed his answer, stating, that it was
true that a bill had been filed in chancery, as alleged in the
present bill, and that the answers thereto had been filed, and
the proceedings were then pending, although he had endeav-
ored to bring the case to a final hearing. That he did institute an
ejectment suit for said property as stated in the bill, but that
the pendency of the chancery suit was no objection to its pros-
ecution, or if it was, the defence should have been taken at law.
That he purchased the property at a sheriff's sale, obtained a
deed for it, and was put into possession by Hill, whom he suf-
fered to remain on the property to take care of it and make
such profits from it as circumstances would allow; Hill ac-
knowledging himself his tenant, and agreeing to surrender the
possession when required. That in April, 1845, he demanded
possession of Hill, which being refused, he brought said eject-
ment and recovered judgment thereon; and was on the 22d of
July, 1847, peaceably put in possession, by Hill, of the said
grounds and premises. That as Hill waived the agreement,
which he had a right to do, his so taken possession was not in
violation of the terms thereof. That he denied, and ever did,
the right of the corporate authorities of the institution, or of the
trustees, to interfere with him in the possession of the property,
forasmuch as the former confessed the judgment, upon which
the sale to him was made; and as, by the terms of the deed,
the latter had no right to interfere with, or control the institu-
tion, even admitting the validity of the deed, (which he did