|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132 SALMON v. CLAGETT.
sary connection between the motion to dissolve, and exceptions to
the answers, (a)
It is, in general, true, that if the answer is in any respect in-
sufficient, the injunction cannot be dissolved on the motion which
the defendant has a right to make on filing it. Yet, an answer
may be only exceptionable in those parts which are not, necessa-
rily, connected with so much of the case as gives rise to the equity
upon which the injunction rests; and therefore, as in such cases,
a decision upon the motion does not involve a consideration of the
other defective and exceptionable portions of the answer; excep-
tions to those parts of it may, without needless repetitions of the
same argument, be separately considered and determined. But it
has always seemed to me, that a defendant, who had manifestly
omitted to answer, or had answered evasively any substantial part
of the bill, not blended with that which peculiarly related to the
grounds of the injunction, would come with a very ill grace to ask
for its dissolution. The court expects from every one, seeking
relief, unreserved frankness; and he who evidently and purposely
holds back something cannot complain if he should find himself
regarded with suspicion and distrust, and be refused that to which
he may, in truth, be entitled; and under other appearances might
have obtained.
On a motion to dissolve, on the coming in of the answer, the
court is confined absolutely to the bill and answer. The answer,
at least so far as it is responsive to the bill, is to be taken for true.
No ex parte affidavits, or other proofs, are ever admitted at that
stage of the case, in support of either the bill or answer. (6) The
discussion is confined within a narrow compass, as to facts and
circumstances; and neither party can be taken by surprise; be-
cause the notice of the motion has given them both time to meet
and repel any unfounded objection to their allegations; all of
which, upon the hearing of that critical, and often all-important
motion, should be found to be such as will stand the test of the
closest and severest scrutiny.
But however it may be in the English courts, in this parti-
cular, (e) it has long been the practice of this court to hear and
decide upon the motion to dissolve, and the exceptions to the
(a) Doe v. Roe, I Hopkins' Rep. 276.—(6) It has been since provided, that the
court may order testimony in reference to the allegations of the bill to be taken, to
that it be returned on the day when the motion shall be heard, 1835, ch. 380, s. 8.—
(e) Eden Inj. 73, 78.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
