was ready to fulfil his contract with Stillwell; but that he shewed no money to this defendant; and this defendant declined giving him a deed, considering that he had no right to the property. He says, that after the failure of the complainant to pay, and after this defendant had agreed to take the property from Stillwell, he applied to his counsel to bring ejectment to recover from the complainant the possession of the lands lying in Passaic, and was advised by his counsel that the complainant was entitled to notice to quit; and thereupon the defendant, as assignee of Stillwell, although before he had received his deed, caused a notice to be served on the complainant, as follows: "You are hereby required to quit the premises held under me, now in your occupation, on the 2d September next, that being the end of a year's occupation, or you will be held to be a trespasser and liable to all the consequences. Dated June 1, 1843. Signed Peter P. Brown, assignee of Richard Stillwell." That the said notice was directed to the complainant and served on him June 6, 1843. He says that at the date of the agreement, the complainant lived with his father, S. S. Gregory, within 200 yards of the forge, and continued to live with him, at that place, till the spring of 1844 or 1845. That after the said notice had been served on the complainant, and while the complainant so lived with his father, his father applied to this defendant to purchase of him. the said property, and, as an inducement to this defendant to sell, stated to him that the said notice to quit was not in some respect legal or in due form, and that this defendant would have difficulty in getting the complainant out of possession. That said S. S. Gregory repeatedly called on this defendant to buy said property; and this defendant finally agreed to sell to said. S. S. Gregory all the property conveyed to him by Stillwell, for $1000. That the sum included a private debt of said S. S.. Gregory to him, after deducting $500, which this defendant gave up to said S. S. Gregory; and this defendant also assigned to him certain notes or judgments amounting to between $500 and $700, they not being of much value to this defendant, though of some value to said S. S. Gregory. That, thereupon, this defendant sold and conveyed the said property to the said S. S. Gregory, by deed dated September 1, 1843; and the defendant

believes, and then believed, that said S. S. Gregory was acting in this matter with the knowledge and approbation of the complainant; and that, after this sale by this defendant to said S. S. Gregory, the complainant had notice of such purchase, and that he then stated that his father had purchased the forge property, but that he did not believe his father would be able to pay for it. He says, that since he gave the said notice to quit, the complainant has never set up any claim to the property, or ever called on him, till June as aforesaid. That S. S. Gregory, after receiving the said deed from this defendant, entered inio possession of the premises, and leased the same, or that part thereof being the forge property, to Foster Landing, by lease under seal, dated September 6th, 1843; who held it under said S. S. Gregory and paid rent to him; and that he continued over a year as tenant to said S. S. Gregory. Then, said S. S. Gregory worked the forge himself for some time; and in June, 1845, he leased it to John B. Vanderen, who has ever since then been in possession under the said lease from S. S. Gregory, and has paid the rent to him. That said last mentioned lease was for one year. That both Landing and Vanderen, by their said leases, agreed to pay S. S. Gregory three hundred of iron for every ton of iron made in said forge, as rent; and that S. S. Gregory has never paid this defendant one cent on said purchase. That S. S. Gregory, on the day he received his deed from this defendant, executed a bond for $1000 and a mortgage on the same property to this defendant, to secure the consideration money; and he having failed to pay, this defendant foreclosed the said mortgage, and obtained a decree for the sale of the property. That an execution was issued under the said decree, and the property sold by virtue thereof; and this defendant bought it and received the deed therefor; and after receiving the said deed, brought an ejectment against the said Vanderen, the tenant, under the said S. S. Gregory, and against E. Sargeant, a workman in possession of the forge who was employed by said Vanderen. And this defendant denies that the complainant has been in possession of said property all the time since the date of said agreement; but insists that since the said sale to S. S. Gregory, he, the said S. S. Gregory, has been in possession, by himself or his tenants,

as before stated. That Vanderen and Sargeant entered into consent rules in the ejectment, and the cause was noticed for trial at the term of March, 1846. That at that term the complainant was admitted to defend the suit as landlord, on condition that he should pay the costs of the term and enter into consent rules in 30 days, or judgment should be entered as of March term. That the complainant's attorney afterwards refused to exchange consent rules; and, at the June term, consented that judgment should be entered, and it was entered, accordingly, against the said Vanderen and Sargeant. He admits the judgments stated in the bill to have been entered against him; but says they have been satisfied. He admits the complainant made some repairs, and put some improvements on the said forge; but what amount he has expended the defendant cannot say ; but he says that the said forge works are not now in any better condition than they were at the date of said agreement, taking them altogether.

On this answer, a motion was made to dissolve the injunction.

A. S. Pennington for the motion.

William Halsted contra.

THE CHANCELLOR. As a general rule, an injunction will not be dissolved without the answer of the defendant on whom the gravamen of the bill rests. But if the answering defendant is able, from his own connection with the subject, and consequent knowledge, to lay facts before the court which show that the complainant has no equity, the injunction may de dissolved without the answer of such other defendant. The equity shewn by the bill did not rest on the extension of time for payment alone. The extension alleged would not have been sufficient to authorize an injunction. The only extension of time alleged in the bill related to the first payment. But, at about the time when the second payment became due, the first still remaining unpaid, the complainant, as charged in the bill, applied to Stillwell in relation to the conveyance, and Stillwell then said that the com

plainant had not complied with the agreement, and that he, Stillwell, would not fulfil it on his part. Here, then, was an end to the extension of time. This was in June, 1841; and the bill was not filed till June, 1846. But the bill stated that, notwithstanding this answer of Stillwell, the complainant had been permitted to remain in possession four years and upwards, before the ejectment was brought; and that he had expended in improvements upwards of $400. That Stillwell held the property some time after June, 1841, and then conveyed it to Brown, who had full knowledge of the agreement between Stillwell and the complainant; but that neither Stillwell nor Brown ever asked rent from the complainant, and that the complainant was considered as remaining in possession, not as tenant, under the leasing part of the agreement, but as purchaser, under the other part of the agreement. This brings the equity of the bill within the reach of Brown's answer. Stillwell conveyed to Brown in August, 1843; and Brown swears that on the 1st of September, 1843, he sold and conveyed to S. S. Gregory, the father of the complainant, and with whom the complainant had lived; and that thereupon S. S. Gregory went into possession of the premises and leased the same, or a part thereof, being the forge property, to Foster Landing, by lease dated September 6, 1843; and that in June, 1845, he leased to Vanderen, who has ever since been in possession under the said S. S. Gregory; and Brown denies that the complainant has been in possession since he, Brown, conveyed, as aforesaid, to S. S. Gregory. Brown further states, that when he sold to S. S. Gregory, he took his bond and mortgage for the purchase money, and that S. S. Gregory made default of payment; and that he, Brown, foreclosed the mortgage, and obtained the decree for the sale of the premises; and that the same was sold, accordingly; and that he bought them at the sale; and that his action of ejectment, which was restrained, was founded on the deed he obtained for the premises under the said decree. This is a part of the case which the bill did not give; and which can hardly be supposed to have been unknown to the complainant. As to the repairs and improvements, the bill does not state when they were made. If they were made after the deed from Brown to S. S. Gregory, the making them would go

to show the probable truth of the statement made by Brown, that the deed from him to S. S. Gregory was made with the approbation of the complainant; and to show that the deed from Brown to the complainant's father was probably for the complainant's benefit. Again, the complainant had the use of the property three years before the conveyance from Brown to S. S. Gregory. How much was done in the way of repairs and improvements within that period, and how much after the deed to S. S. Gregory, we are not informed.

Injunction dissolved.

JOHN P. OUTWATER and others v. ABRAHAM I. BERRY, and

others.

Sale of real estate by a Trustee set aside.

Supplement Bill, nature of.

Process on the original bill should be served before a supplemental bill is filed. Circumstances under which the want of subpoena on the original bill was held not to be good ground of general demurrer to the snpplemental bill.

A general demurrer bad in part will be overruled.

On the 26th January, 1844, John P. Outwater and others, stockholders of "The New Barbadoes Toll Bridge Company," for themselves and all other the creditors and stockholders of the said company who should come in and seek relief by and contribute to the expense of the said suit, exhibited their bill, stating the incorporation of the said company, by an act passed February 16, 1816, and setting out the provisions of the act and of the several supplements thereto. That by virtue of the last supplement the corporation continued, and the road and bridges of the company continued to be used as a line of public travel, and the company continued to keep up their toll gate and to col