190 JONES v. MAGILL

It is an ancient and well settled general rule, that where there
are several defendants to the bill, no motion to dissolve the injunc-

Hillen and John Marsh. The bill states, that before Baltimore was incorporated as
a caty, the then commissioners of the town had so graded Baltimore street continued
and York street, from Jones' falls to Harford street, as that the water, falling into
them, was conveyed in nearly equal proportions m the opposite directions to Jones'
fells and Harford run; according to which graduation they had regulated their im-
provements , that by the act of 1796, ch 68, s 9, the grade of no street can be altered
without the consent of the proprietors of the lots adjoining such street, that without
the consent of these plaintiffs, and contrary to law, the defendants, as city commis-
sioners, had altered the grade of Baltimore and York streets, whereby there is, and
will be a very considerable increase of water and filth conveyed to Jones' falls before
their property, and that of others in like situation , which, especially in the summer
season, is matter of no small moment, and, that the defendants are now actively
engaged in cutting down and adjusting those streets to the new graduation Upon
which the plaintiffs prayed for general relief, and for an injunction to prevent the
alteration of the grade of those streets.

10th December, 1808 —KILTY, Chancellor —From a perusal of this bill, and an
examination of the act of Assembly referred to, the Chancellor is at present of
opinion, that there is ground for the complaint made , and that the injunction ought
to be granted Whether the act of 1797, ch 54, makes any alteration of the pro-
visions m the 9th section of the act of 1796, ch 68, he is not prepared to say But
to prevent the injury which might arise by the interference of this court, in case the
commissioners should appear to be acting within their authority, it is to be under-
stood, that a motion to dissolve the injunction will be heard at any time, on such
notice as shall be directed, either before, or after answer. The injunction to be issued
as prayed, and this order copied thereon

On the 12th of December, 1808, the defendant Hillen alone put in his answer, in
which he stated, that the alteration m the grade of the streets, as stated m the bill,
had been made with the consent of the proprietors of the immediately adjacent lots,
that the plaintiffs owned no lots nearer than from six to nine hundred feet from those
streets, and that these defendants then had employed nearly twenty labourers, with
carts, making the alterations m those streets, which, when made, would be highly
beneficial to the public in general Upon which this defendant moved to have a day
appointed to hear a motion to dissolve

12th December, 1808 —KILTY, Chancellor —Ordered, that a motion for dissolving
the injunction be heard on ^e 20th instant, provided a copy of this order be served
on either of the complainants, or their solicitor, on or before the 18th instant

The plaintiffs' solicitor admitted the service of a copy of this order, and die motion
came on to be heard

20th December, 1808 —KILTY, Chancellor.—The motion for the dissolution of the
injunction issued on the 10th instant was, according to appointment, argued oa
this day.

Although the presumption is, and ought to be, that persons acting under the charter
and ordinances of a corporation, will conform to the limitations therein contained;
•yet when a case is stated, on oath, which apparently shews a contrary proceeding,
tt becomes the duty of this court to interfere. The answer of the defendant, denying
the grounds of the application, is, however, entitled to equal attention. The Chan ,
cellor was under the impression, from the bill, that some of the parties held property