|
|
|
|
|
|
|
162 SALMON v. CLAGETT.
bill should set forth a case of plain right, and a probable danger
that the right would be defeated without the interposition of this
court; (9) of it should appear, that the question was important
and doubtful; (t) and the truth of the facts should be verified by
an affidavit which is usually made by the plaintiff himself, or by
one of the plaintiffs if there be more than one. That, however, is
not essential \ for, I have granted an injunction when the bill was
sworn to by an agent of the plaintiff who was privy to the trans-
action, the plaintiff being a foreigner and resident abroad. (u) In-
deed, an affidavit of any one does not appear to be indispensably
necessary; if documentary, or any other kind of evidence be pro-
duced, sufficient to cause belief, and to induce the court to trust
the bill for the truth of its statements, (w)
Having thus far placed confidence in the bill, that confidence
will not be withdrawn until the coming in of the answer, in which
the defendant is expected to respond clearly and distinctly to all
those facts stated in the bill, producing that equity on which the
injunction was awarded. In one case, reported among the Eng-
lish adjudications, it is laid down as a general rule, that where a
plain equity set forth by the bill is admitted by the answer; but
endeavoured to be avoided by another fact, the injunction shall
always be continued to the hearing, (x)
This, unquestionably, is the rule by which this court is governed
on a motion to dissolve, made on the coming in of the answer. It
appears to me to be according to the reason of the thing; (y) and
I am much inclined to believe, that this very case has been mainly
instrumental in establishing that rule in this court. But it is not
mentioned in any English abridgment, digest, compilation, or
book, other than that book wherein it is reported; which Lord
Mansfield absolutely forbid from being cited; declaring, that there
was not one case in it which was right throughout, (z) Hence
there is reason to believe, that although this case must be admitted
as right throughout here, it may not be deemed so in England, (a)
In this court, the question presented, on a motion to dissolve,
on the coming in of the answer, is not one which always or neces-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(s) Anonymous, 1 Tern. 120; The State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Ball. 405.—
(t) Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Ves. 636,—(u) Dunlop v. Harrison, 28 September,
1826.—(w) Schermehorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. 364.-—(x) Allen v. Crabcroft,
Barnardiston Ch. Rep. 373.—(y) Minturn v. Seymour, 4 John. C. C. 499.—
(s) Zouch v. Woolston, 2 Burr, 1142, n.; Boardman v. Jackson, 2 Ball & Bea-
386.—(a) Williams u. Hall, 1 Bland, 195, n.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
