186 JONES v. MAGILL.

&c.;(f) or where there are many defendants who are widely dis-
persed, or some of whom are nonresidents, and it appears, from

some cases in which answers have been thus put in, and have been considered,
without any objection having been made. And he is clearly of opinion, that the
answers, as far as they are affected by this objection, form a part of the case now
for its determination.

When the bill was presented to the Chancellor, he was not informed of the opinion
which had been given by the Court of Appeals. A short copy only of the judgment
of that court was filed, stating the affirmance, without any notice of an opinion
having been given. (2 H. & J, 41.) The answer of Story has been filed since the
argument; but is not considered as making any difference in the decision.

It is, on the whole, Ordered, that the injunction in this case shall be, after the 30th
day of the present month, dissolved without further application or order. Provided,
that if the complainant shall, on or before that day, pay the amount due on the said
judgment, and the legal costs to the said Alexander Story, or his assigns, or his
counsel in this suit; or pay the same into this court, for the purpose of being imme-
diately so paid, an order for another injunction will be issued, if applied for.

On the 5th of October, 1807, the bill was dismissed by order of the plaintiff. After
which, Thomas C. Jenkins, by his petition stated, that he had paid the sum of $12 99
for postage, notarial seals, &c. in obtaining the answer of the defendant Story, which
he prayed to have allowed to him; and, that the register be directed to tax that amount
with the costs of the defendant.

10th March, 1808.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The Chancellor is not satisfied, that this
charge is properly taxable in the costs; and the present state of the accounts is a
further objection. Supposing the petition to be intended for an order to have those
sums taxed in or added to the costs, it cannot be granted.

(f) Crowder v. Tinkler, 19 Ves. 622; Winstanley v. Lee, 2 Swan. 335.

WORTHINGTON v. BicKNELL.—The General Assembly, by the act of 1803, ch. 89,
Appointed Thomas Bicknell, with six others, commissioners to open a road, from a
point on the road leading from the city of Annapolis, round the head of South river,
by Waters' mill, and the South river Meetinghouse, to Ashton's ford, on the Patux-
ent, thence through Ogle's plantation to intersect the road leading to Bladensburg;
provided, that they should not run it through the buildings, yards, orchards, gardens,
or meadows of any one without his consent. Under the authority of this law, the
commissioners surveyed the road, along the route thus described, so as to pass near
the mill of John Worthington; upon which he filed a bill in this court, on the 11th
of December, 1805, in which he alleges, that the commissioners had exceeded the
authority conferred on them by this law, in locating the road in such a manner as
most wrongfully, and ruinously to affect his mill, by so crossing and passing along
the mill race, as to obstruct or prevent the water from flowing to it. And thereupon
prayed an injunction to prevent the commissioners from opening the road, as thus
located by them. Which injunction was granted as prayed. The commissioners
answered the bill, and denied the allegations and opinions as therein set forth by the
plaintiff. And the case was afterwards brought regularly before the court on a motion
to dissolve the injunction.

22d December, 1806.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The motion to dissolve the injunction
in this case having been continued from the September term last, was submitted at
this term on notes in writing, which, together with the proceedings, have been at-
tentively considered.