374 CHANCERY. [ART. 16

1004. art. 16, sec. 70. 188S. art. 16. see. 68. 1835. ch. 380. sec. 8.
1861, ch. 32. 1872, ch. 137.

83. In all cases pending on motion to grant an injunction, motion
to dissolve an injunction, motion to appoint a receiver, or motion to
rescind an order appointing a receiver, the court may, at the instance
of either party, order testimony to be taken before such person, and
upon such notice and in such manner as the court in its discretion may
direct, to be used at the hearing of such motion.*

The failure of a party to take testimony under this section after securing
leave, leads to the inference that the answer can not be contradicted. Wash-
ington University v. Green, 1 Md. Ch. 103; Flickinger v. Hull, 5 Gill, 78
(dissenting opinion).

Leave to the parties to take depositions before a standing commissioner, or
a justice of the peace, after notice. Is in conformity with this section. Belt v.
Blackburn, 28 Md. 243.

If a defendant's answer to a bill for an injunction is insufficient, the defect
cannot be supplied by proof taken under the act of 1835, ch. 380. Bouldin v.
Baltimore, 10 Md. 20; Hamilton v. Whitridge. 11. Md. 143.

Cited but not construed in injunction cases. Baltimore v. Warren Co.. 39
Md. 110; Cumberland Coal. etc.. Co. v. Sherman. 20 Md. 131; Flickinger v.
Hull, 5 Gill, 78 (dissenting opinion); Alien v. Burke. 2 Md. Ch. 537: Lamborn
v. Covington Co.. 2 Md. Ch. 412.

Ibid. sec. 80. 1888, art. 16, sec. 69. 1888, ch. 260.

84. No court shall refuse to issue a mandamus or injunction on
the mere ground that the party asking for the same has an adequate
remedy in damages, unless the party against whom the same is asked
shall show to the court's satisfaction that he has property from which
the damages can be made, or shall give a bond in a penalty to be fixed by
the court, and with a surety or sureties approved by the court, to answer
all damages and costs that he may be adjudged by any court of compe-
tent jurisdiction to pay to the party asking such mandamus or injunc-
tion by reason of his not doing the act or acts sought to be commanded,
or by reason of his doing the act or acts sought to be enjoined, as the
case may be.

Intent of this section. It relates to cases where damages, as contra-dis-
tinguished from debt, are involved. Conner v. Groh, 90 Md. 684; Frederick
Bank v. Shafer, 87 Md. 38.

This section held not to justify the continuing of an injunction, since the
evidence showed that the defendant had property In this state ample to meet
any damages recovered. Bartlett v. Movers. 88 Md. 720.
This section Is identical with art. 20, sec. 25—see notes thereto.
See art. 8, see. 17.

Jurisdiction.

Ibid. sec. 81. 1888. art 10. sec. 70. 1860. art. 10. sec. 56. 1832, ch. 16, sec. 1.

1853. ch. 122. sec. 2.

85. The judges of the several judicial circuits and the judges of
the circuit courts of Baltimore city shall each, in his respective circuit,
have and exercise all the power, and authority and jurisdiction which
the court of chancery formerly held and exercised, e.xcept in so far as
the same may be modified by this code.

*This section was inadvertently omitted from the code of 1860. but was re-
enacted by the act of 1861. ch. 32—see Steigerwald v. Winans. 17 Md. 66.