566 BILLINGSLEA v. GILBERT.

BILLINGSLEA v. GILBERT.

The penalty of an injunction bond to stay proceedings at law should be at least

double the amount of the debt and interest then due.

An answer to a bill in chancery may, by consent, be* received without oath.
On its being shewn, that the dissolution of an injunction has been irregularly and

improperly obtained it may be revived.

It appears that the late William Billingslea, on the 9th March
1821, filed his bill here praying for an injunction to stay proceed-
ings at law instituted against him by Jarvis Gilbert; and in the
same month Billingslea filed a supplemental bill against Gilbert, in
like manner praying for an injunction.

19th March, 1821.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The penalty of the
injunction bond, 2000 dollars, is not sufficient. It should be double
the amouat of the debt which is .£600 and the interest thereon,
excepting what has been paid.

After which another bond was filed and submitted.

4th April, 1821.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The penalty of the injunc-
tion bond now filed is still insufficient. The interest after deduct-
ing the payments made is nearly 1516 dollars. The penalty should
be double the aggregate of principal and interest, and the safest
way is to make it somewhat more. When the injunction issues it
will only he to stay the execution, and not to prevent the having a
trial or obtaining a judgment.(a)

(a) YANCE v. SHORT.—1788.—Answer filed; rule on the plaintiff to shew cause
on the first day of July next why he should not give better security to prosecute his
injunction with effect. Also notice of motion to dissolve the injunction next court.—
Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. let. B. fol. 354.

SWEENY v. RODGERS.—1790.—Rule on the complainant to file a new bond with
sufficient surety by the 18th of October next, or the injunction be dissolved.—Chan.
Proc. lib. S. H. H. let. C. fol. 400.

ONION t?. McCoMAs.—MS. 1812.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Where the surety in an
injunction bond is, or has become insufficient, as being an infant or having become
insolvent, the court will order new security, or that the injunction be dissolved; and,
if the court has been imposed on, no time will be allowed to give new security. Such
matter may be enquired into by allowing testimony to be taken, and appointing a
day for blaring.

WHITNEY v. MTTSCHET, MS. 1808.—KILTY, Chancellor.—An injunction bond to
stay proceedings at law should state the term at which the judgment was obtained.

CorasELMANv. GAITHER, MS. 1810.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Ordered that, instead
of an injunction bond, on the money appearing to be due by the execution issued,
being paid to the register, which he is directed to receive and deposit in the usual
manner, an injunction be issued as prayed.

-. *