184 JONES v. MAGILL.

is such as to require a hearing without delay; it being
of a public concern, or an extensive work in which a num-

for the use of Alexander Story. It is stated in the bill, that the plaintiff in January,
1799, became bound by a joint and several bond to the city of Baltimore as surety
of the defendant Yates as an auctioneer; that afterwards separate suits were brought
on the bond against Yates, and the plaintiff, in the name of the city, for the use of
Story; that Yates repeatedly assured the plaintiff, that the cause of action should be
settled and adjusted, and that he, Yates, would cause those suits to be defended, and
had employed a lawyer for that purpose; that the attorney, instead of making any
defence, by the fraudulent contrivance and misrepresentation of Yates, withdrew the
plea of general performance of all the stipulations in the condition of the bond; and
in May, 1803, confessed judgment for the sum of $4154 30, with interest from the
first of January, 1800, and a stay of execution until the first of August, 1803; which
judgment was afterwards affirmed by the Court of Appeals; that the claim of Story
against Yates, upon which those suits were brought on the bond, was for goods sold
by Yates as auctioneer, for Story, the price of which he had not paid over; which,
not being a claim covered by the terms of the bond, according to a fair construction
of the city ordinance, in conformity with which it was given, this plaintiff cannot
be held liable for it; because that ordinance requires a bond from auctioneers to
secure the payment of the auction duties made payable to the city, and nothing more.
The bill having been filed and submitted,

23d December, 1806.—KILTY, Chancellor.—It is ordered, that subpana and injunction
be issued as prayed. But the Chancellor considers it a doubtful case; and therefore
will, during the first four days of February term next, or of any term thereafter,
hear a motion for its dissolution. And the register is directed to endorse a copy of
this order on the injunction.

On the 27th January, 1807, the plaintiff, by his petition on oath, stated that as he
had been advised his bill did not contain all the necessary parties; that he could not
have the relief he was entitled to, under the general prayer of the bill, without some
additional special interrogatories; that William McMechen, the attorney who
appeared for the defendants in the suits on the bond, was a necessary party; and
that the defendant Story was a citizen, resident of the State of New York, against
whom, as such, he wished to obtain an order of publication. Wherefore he prayed
leave to amend his bill.

28th January, 1807.~KILTY, Chancellor.-~The Chancellor will determine on this
petition during the first week of the ensuing February term, which he considers will
be in time to do justice to the parties.

The plaintiff, by his petition filed on the 4th of February, 1807, renewed his ap-
plication for leave to amend his bill.

5th February, 1807.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The Chancellor is still of opinion, that
a determination on the petition for amending the bill need not be made before the
ensuing term. But as it is pressed by the complainant, leave is given to amend the
bill as prayed; with the express proviso, that this leave shall not alter, or do away
the order of the 23d December last, that the Chancellor would, during the first four
days of February term next, or of any term thereafter, hear a motion for its dis-
solution.

On the 16th of February, 1807, the plaintiff filed his amended bill, in which he
states the fact of the nonresidence of the defendant Story; makes William McMechen
a party; and propounds to the defendants a number of interrogatories, which he