J0OT28 *. MAGILL. 177

JONES v. MAGILL.

An injunction may be granted in any case, on the bill alone, before a subpoena has
issued, on affidavit, or such other testimony as shews the truth of the statements
of the ball; except to stay proceedings at law to recover mortgaged property. The
mode of giving notice of a motion to dissolve. Exceptions to the answer, and the
motion to dissolve, may stand for hearing at the same time. The rule further
proceedings may be entered, during the sittings, and at the same time with the
entry of notice of motion to dissolve, and may be enforced at the same time; or
at the proper time after the motion to dissolve has been disposed of. On hearing
the motion, the plaintiff opens and concludes the argument. In extraordinary
cases, the injunction is granted upon terms adapted to the circumstances. It is a
general rule, that where there are two or more defendants, no motion to dissolve
can be heard until all of them have answered; but to this rule there are exceptions.
Where one of the defendants has answered, he may have the plaintiff compelled
to use all due diligence to enforce an answer from the other defendants, or to have
the case placed in such a situation as to enable the responding defendant to move
for a dissolution of the injunction.

This bill was filed on the 18th of January, 1825, by Elizabeth
Jinn Jones, executrix of Abraham Jones, deceased, against Thomas
Magill, John F. Gittings, and Thomas N. Harding. The bill states,
that on the 26th of October, 1818, the defendant Harding, gave
his note for the sum of $500, to the defendant Gittings, which
was signed by the late Abraham Jones, the testator of the plaintiff,
as surety for Harding; that Harding, in order to save Jones harm-
less, on the 10th of August, 1822, by a bill of sale, conveyed,to
Alexander Warfield certain negroes and other personal property, a
part of which was intended for the security of Warfield, who was
bound for Harding in other cases; that after the death of the
plaintiff's testator, Warfield, on the 5th of April, 1823, by bill of
sale, conveyed to this plaintiff, two negroes, named Nelson and
Mason, which were intended by Harding to secure the plaintiff
against loss by the liability of her testator, on the note for $500;
that, with a view to defraud the plaintiff, those negroes had been
concealed and disposed of, out of this State, by the defendants
Harding and Magill; that on the 11th of December, 1821, Harding,
by bill of sale, conveyed two negroes, John and Westley, to the
defendant Gittings, for the purpose of securing to him the payment
of a note which he held of Harding's, for the sum of $326 81;
that the money secured by those two notes belonged to Juliet A.
C. Gittings, then an infant, who was married, in January, 1823, to
the defendant Magill; that the defendant Gittings, who was her

23