|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASH. 623
three distinct periods. The first is that belonging to the bill filed
on the 6th of August, 1822; the second is that of the bill of the
4th of January, 1823; and the last is that which has been accu-
mulated under the bill introduced to the court on the 10th of June,
1824. On each an injunction has been awarded; and all have
been combined, or in a manner consolidated by each of the latter
bills, invoking the prior bills and proceedings into itself. The
object of them all is to establish and protect the interest, which
Ridout and Jubere claim, as trustees, for the use of John Gibson's
children, in the stock of The Cape Sable Company. The present
motion is to obtain a dissolution of the injunction which has been
granted on the last of these bills.
Upon a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances
which gave rise to the equity upon which this injunction was
granted, it appears, that the answers of the defendants, who make
the motion, have not so denied them as to displace any material
part of that foundation of fact upon which this injunction rests, (h)
But it is a general rule, that where there are two or more defen-
dants, a motion to dissolve cannot be heard until the answers of
all of them come in. (i) The Barbers, Slye, and Love, have
neither of them yet answered; and it is highly probable, that they
may disclose facts of the greatest importance upon a motion of
this kind.
It is therefore Ordered, that the injunction heretofore issued in
this case, be continued until the final hearing or further order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After which the defendants Thomas Barber, George Slye, Samuel
C. Love, and Luke Barber, put in their answers, in which they
state, that their several judgments had been assigned, for a valua-
ble consideration, before they were satisfied, to the defendant
Carroll; and they denied all fraud, &c. It was agreed, that the
answer filed by Richard Caton on the 23d of June, 1824, to the
bill filed on the 10th of June, 1824, should be received as his an-
swer to the bill filed on the 4th of January, 1823. And also, that
the answer of The Cape Sable Company, filed on the 24th of June,
1824, to the bill filed on the 10th of June, 1824, should be received
as their answer to the bill filed on the 4th of January, 1823. To
all these answers the plaintiffs put in a general replication, and
commissions were issued and testimony taken. The Chancellor,
(h) Salmon v. Clagett, ante 162. —(i) Eden. Inj. 66; Jones v. Magill, 1 Bland, 177.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
