468; ARTICLE. 16.

An. Code, sec. 83. 1904, sec. 79. 1888, sec. 68. 1835, ch. 380, sec. 8. 1861, ch. 32.
1872, ch. 157.

86. 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.

A case reversed because, since the adoption of the act of 1835, ch. 380, it has
always been held error to proceed to final decree upon a motion to dissolve an in-
junction; the most that can be asked under such circumstances is a continuance of
the injunction until final hearing. Wilmer v. Pica, 118 Md. 551.

This section referred to as authorizing a party, who upon his own motion is made
a defendant subsequent to the filing of the bill, to apply to the lower court for a
rescission of such prior orders as he thinks improper. See notes to art. 5, sec. 40.
Carringtqn v. Basshor Co., 121 Md. 76.

The failure of a party to take testimony under this section after securing leave,
leads to the inference that the answer cannot be contradicted. Washington Uni-
versity n. Green,.! 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. Black-
burn, 28 Md. 243.

If a defendant's answer to a bill for an injunction is insufficient, the defect can-
not be supplied by proof taken under the act of 1835, ch. 380. Bouldin v. Balti-
more, 15 Md. 20; Hamilton v. Whitridge, 11 Md. 143.

Cited but not construed in injunction cases. Baltimore v. Warren Co., 59 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.

An. Code, sec. 84. 1904, sec. 80. 1888, sec. 69. 1888, ch. 260.

87. 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 competent jurisdiction to pay to
the party asking such mandamus or injunction 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.

Even if appellee could have sued appellant at law for fraud, in view of this sec-
tion the jurisdiction of equity to grant an injunction on account of such fraud was
not affected. Michael v. Rigler, 142 Md. 133.

Intent of this section. It relates to cases where damages, as contra-distinguished
from debt, are involved. Conner v. Groh, 90 Md. 684; Frederick Bank v. Shafer,
. 87 Md. 58.

This section held not to justify the continuing of an injunction, since the evi-
dence showed that the defendant had property in this state ample to meet any
damages recovered. Bartlett v. Moyers, 88 Md. 720.
This section is identical with art. 26, sec. 25—see notes thereto.
See art. 8, sec. 17.

Jurisdiction.

An Code, sec. 85. 1904, sec. 81. 1888, sec. 70. 1852, ch. 16, sec. 1. 1853, ch. 122, sec. 2.

88. The judges of the several judicial circuits and the judges of the
circuit courts of Baltimore city shall each, in his respective circuit, have