JONES v. MAGILL. 195

fraudulently concealed and disposed of property which ought to
have been applied in satisfaction of the debt with which the

supersedeas, will, on application after that day be dissolved. Provided a copy of this
order be served on the complainant Williams, or his counsel, or either of the super-
seders on the judgment so confessed, before the 7th day of March next.

In compliance with this order the plaintiffs filed another bond, in the condition of
which the judgment confessed as a supersedeas was expressly recited in the usual
form, which bond they submitted for approbation.

10th March, 1810.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The within bond is received for the pre-
sent. If any objection should be made thereto, and ruled good, a further time will be
fixed for the execution of another bond.

On the 7th of July, 1810, the defendant, David Stewart, put in ms separate answer,
by which he explained away or denied most of the principal facts and circumstances
stated in the bill. And on the 6th of August, 1810, David C. Stewart filed his
answer, in which he refers to, adopts, and relies upon the answer of his partner and
co-defendant, David Stewart.

12th September, 1810.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The motion to dissolve the injunction
in this case came on to be heard according to notice at the present term, and was
fully argued by the counsel on each side.

In this case, as in others of a similar nature, whatever might be the result on the
final hearing, it would be proper to continue the injunction if the answer was evasive
and not full; if the answer did not deny the facts on which the equity of the com-
plainants rested; and also if the books and papers, exhibited in compliance with the
prayer of the bill, shewed, that the facts were different from what the defendant con-
ceived and represented them to be. But the answer of the defendant Hall certainly
contains a full and complete denial of the equity stated in the bill; and the documents
called for by the complainants, go more to corroborate than to weaken that denial;
and Hall's answer is also sustained by those of Stewart & Son, filed since the notice
of the motion to dissolve.

Among the points, deducible from the charges made in the bill, the most important
is, that the complainants Hillen and Williams were not interested with Stewart &
Son in the Holstein. It would make an end of the case, and was therefore most
strenuously urged by the complainant's counsel. But it is a remarkable circum-
stance, that, although the bill may be said to be argumentative with a view of induc-
ing the court to believe this to be the fact, it is not in any part thereof expressly
stated to be so. And the Chancellor is more particularly induced to notice this cir-
cumstance, from his recollection of having pointed it out as one of the objections to
the bill "that was first filed.

Upon the whole it is ordered, that the injunction heretofore issued in this case, be
and the same is hereby dissolved.

The plaintiffs, by their petition, filed on the 9th of February, 1811, without oath
or affidavit of any one, stated, that they believe, that further answers and documents
which David Stewart could make and produce, relative to the matters and things
contained in the bill of complaint, would materially promote the developement
of the facts alleged in it, and particularly the following books, papers and docu-
ments, viz.: The ledger of the said David Stewart & Son, from the begin-
ning of the year 1799, till the dissolution of their partnership; their journal, day
book, &c. &c. And therefore pray, that David Stewart & Son may be ordered to