JONES v. MAGILL. 193

made on the answer of the cestui que trust alone; and indeed where
there appeared to have been fraud and collusion, the cestui que trust,
although not a party to the suit, was allowed to move for a disso-
lution of the injunction;(j) and the injunction may be dis-
solved as against some of the defendants only; or it may be
dissolved on the answer of an insolvent, who has no interest in
the matter, upon his speaking to facts peculiarly within his own
knowledge before his insolvency ;(k) and so where it appears
from the nature of the case, that the responding defendant is the
only one who can speak, from his own knowledge, in relation to
the facts on which the injunction rests ;(l) as where the defendants
who have not answered are infants; and so too where it appears,
that the answer of a nonresident defendant "cannot be material as
to the facts on which the injunction is founded.(m)

that the injunction of this court should be dissolved upon the strength of titles thus
set out, and not answering the interrogatories in the bill.

The conduct and expression of Evans, in his lifetime, are relied on to prove his
assent to the purchase, after the doubts as to the title were known. But the answer
of the assignees shews only, that, although he was advised to the contrary, he was
determined to abide by the contract, by paying for that part to which a good title
could be given; and that he wished to receive a good title for the whole. And the
directions in his will do not prove his consent to take the whole as it stood. Con-
sidering that the equity, on which the injunction was granted, still subsists, to wit,
the uncertainty of obtaining a valid title after the payment of the purchase money ;
and its application to the claim against the land.

It is ordered that the said injunction be continued till the final hearing, or further
order.

Without any further proceedings being had in this case, it appears to have been
some time afterwards dismissed by the plaintiffs.

(j) Nugent u. Smyth, Mosely, 354.

(k) Joseph v, Doubleday, 1. Ves. & Bea. 497.

(1) Boheme v. Porter, Barn. Chan. Rep. 352; Rowcroft v. Donaldson, 1 Pow. Ex.
Pra. 286.

(m) Sholbred v. Macmaster, 2 Anstr. 366.

WILLIAMS v. HALL.—It appears, that a bill had been filed previous to the institu-
tion of this suit, by James Williams and Solomon Hillen, against Edward Hal!,
David Stewart, and David C. Stewart, to obtain an injunction, which having been
filed and submitted to the Chancellor, he granted the injunction, but suggested, that
the bill seemed to be too indistinct and merely argumentative in regard to the plain-
tiffs not being interested as partners with the" Stewarts. In consequence of which
the plaintiffs afterwards, by their petition, stating, that no process had been issued,
or served, prayed leave to withdraw their bill and exhibits from the files of the court.
Upon which, on the 6th of July, 1809, the leave was granted as prayed.

This bill was filed on the 15th of July, 1809, by the same plaintiffs, against the
same defendants. From which it appears, that the plaintiffs were partners in trade,
which they conducted by Williams then residing in the West Indies, and Hillen in
Baltimore; that Hall also then resided in the West Indies, carrying on trade there an

25