£00 JONES v. MAGILL.

them, unless the plaintiff shews, that he is using all due diligence
to have all the others brought before the court.(o.)

These defendants, who now ask for a dissolution of this injunc-
tion, have not yet, by a rule further proceedings, required the
plaintiff to prosecute her suit without delay; and, consequently,
they cannot justly complain of the injunction being continued until
the filing of the answer of the defendant Gittings; which it is
evident, may bring into the case an acknowledgment of facts, that
may go far to sustain, if not entirely to support the equity upon
which the plaintiff's injunction rests. Hence, as there is now no
ground to impute to the plaintiff any unreasonable neglect in the
prosecution of her suit; and the answer of a defendant, under
whom this creditor, Magill, claims, who, it is admitted, can speak
from his own knowledge of some of the material facts charged in
the bill, has not yet been put in; the hearing of the motion to
dissolve cannot be taken up until his answer has been brought in;
or, until it may be inferred, from the laches of the plaintiff, in not
endeavouring to have it brought in, that it would contain nothing
likely to sustain her case; or until such implied notice of the bill
has been given to the non-responding defendant, if he be not
resident within the State, as will enable the court to proceed with-
out his answer, (r)

23d May, 1810.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The commission, which was ordered, at the
present term, has been returned, and the case is submitted for final hearing; an
abstract being made on the part of the defendants.

Although the real state of the transaction is not discovered very clearly from the
proceedings; yet, as it appears in proof, that the complainant refused to produce the
agreement, thereby adding weight to the testimony of Peter Snyder respecting it,
it is not considered necessary to continue the injunction in force. Whereupon it is
Decreed, that the injunction be dissolved, and the bill dismissed, but without costs.

(q) Gow. Part. 179.

(r) PAUL v. NIXON.—This bill was filed on the 25th of August, 1796, by John
Paul against John Nixon, Benjamin Fuller, John Donaldson, and David H. Cunning-
ham, surviving executors of William West. The bill states, that the plaintiff had,
on the 23d of December, 1777, given his bond to the defendants' testator, with a
condition for the payment of the sum of four hundred pounds, which he signed
without reflection as to the interest reserved; that to correct the mistake in this
respect, the defendants' testator, soon afterwards, signed and delivered to the plaintiff
a written agreement, whereby he, the obligee, agreed that he would demand no more
than three per cent, per annum until the debt was paid; that this agreement the
plaintiff had lost; that the defendants had brought suit and obtained judgment for
the whole amount, with legal interest, without giving him credit for certain payments
which he had made; and without having the sum really due adjusted, according to
the terms upon which the judgment was given, which were, that the amount of
Interest accruing on the bond should be ascertained by William McLaughlin.