and positive, and not such as can only be made sufficient by the aid of presumption.' § 77. If an injunction is prayed in the bill, but omitted in the prayer for process, an injunction ought not to issue without an amendment." § 78. The rule that, in injunction bills, the particular title of the complainant must be set forth, is more especially applicable in cases of waste; in cases of trespass and nuisance, it is sufficient to allege that the complainant is the owner in fee simple, and in possession. And, in a late case, where, in a bill for injunction the complainant alleged that he was "seized and possessed" of the land in question, but there was no demurrer or objection to evidence, but a special answer, putting in issue the question of ownership; held, even if the above words imported nothing more than possession, objection could not be taken by a motion in error." 79. An injunction bill will not be dismissed because the master has omitted to sign the jurat, if the bill has been actually sworn to." § 80. An injunction of a sale of land, under a power in a mortgage, may be granted on a bill, which does not contain a sufficient description of the land to justify a writ of possession." § 81. A bill for injunction need not contain a prayer for discovery." § 82. An allegation of the service of an injunction means a service that is legal and sufficient in law. 482. Perkins v. Collins, 2 Green Ch. 2 Bailey v. Stiles, 2 Green Ch. 245. 3 Van Winkle v. Curtis, 2 Green Ch. 422. Falls, &c. v. Tibbetts, 31 Conn. Capner v. Flemington M. Co., 2 Green Ch. 467. 6 Conant v. Warren, 6 Gray, 562. 7 Laurence v. Bowman, 1 McAll. C. C. (Cal.) 419. 8 Loomis v. Brown, 16 Barb. 325. § 83. On an ex parte application for an injunction upon bill alone, the injunction will not be refused for an apparent misnomer of the defendant, as he may not, on coming in, wish to avail himself of the objection.1 $84. A defendant cannot, after consenting to a decree against him, for an injunction and an account, object to the misjoinder of one of the plaintiffs.* $85. Where a surety alleged, in his bill for relief against a judgment, that the creditor indulged the principal without the complainant's consent, and the respondent answered that such consent was given; held, the negative averment of the complainant was proper, but one which he was not bound to prove; that the denial of the defendant did not make his answer evidence; and that it was incumbent on him to prove such consent.3 § 86. Where a bill asks for an injunction, to protect the complainants from apprehended danger, and the answer denies that the apprehensions are well grounded; the court will give the defendants the full benefit of their denial, and refuse the injunction, unless the complainants make out a very clear case in their bill and affidavits." § 86 a. With reference to the pleadings subsequent to the bill, it is held that an injunction will not be granted before answer, unless some interest of the plaintiff will be injured or endangered by the proceedings of the defendant in the mean time. And, on a motion for a provisional injunction, the defendant may file and read his answer to the bill." § 86 6. The (Maryland) acts of 1852, c. 183, and 1853, c. 344, do not apply to an answer, at the hearing of a motion 2 Bosley v. Bland, 63. Livingston How. 546. Susquehanna, &c., 3 v. Woodworth, 15 3 Carpenter v. Devon, 6 Ala. 718. Rogers v. Danforth, 1 Stockt. 289. 5 Osborn v. Taylor, 5 Paige, 515. Hulse v. Wright, Wright Ch. 61. for the dissolution of the injunction, when such a hearing is not a final one.1 § 86 c. A defendant may by a sufficient answer to the bill at once prevent an injunction; as by an answer which would dissolve an injunction if granted.3 But where the bill alleges fraud, forgery, and antedating, and the answer denies these allegations only on "information and belief," it is not suffi cient to prevent the issue of an injunction. And in the Circuit Court of the United States the practice is settled, that the denial of the plaintiff's title in an answer does not prevent the court from awarding a special temporary injunction." § 87. With reference to the formal requisites of the injunction itself, it is held that an injunction should be clear and explicit, and apprise the defendant what he is restrained from doing, without the necessity of his resorting to the bill on file; and, if he does not in fact know to what the injunction applies, he will be justified in proceeding, notwithstanding the injunction. (See Chap. IV.) Thus an injunction restraining a husband from annoying his wife is improper.' So an injunction must, upon its face, show clearly to what property it is intended to apply, or it cannot be enforced. And an injunction should be restricted to the case made by the bill.' In Pennsylvania, it is said, "injunctions are frequently in the form of a writ, but these forms are not adapted to every case, and therefore the prohibition in numerous instances assumes the shape of an order, in the nature of an injunction. As the courts treat the disobedience of all orders as a contempt, and enforce the performance of them by imprisonment, the distinction between a writ of injunction and an order in the nature of one is disregarded in practice. Both are known by the Bouldin v. Baltimore, 15 Md. 18; Gellston v. Rullman, 15 Md. 260. 2 Hall v. McPherson, 3 Bland, 529. 3 Bell v. Purvis, 15 Md. 22. U. S. v. Parrott, 1 McAll. C. C. 271. 1 5 Clum v. Brewer, 2 Curt. 506; Poor v. Carleton, 3 Sumn. 70. 6 Sullivan v. Judah, 4 Paige, 444; 2 ib. 234. 7 Lowrie v. Lowrie, 2 Paige, 234. name of injunctions. If the order be issued in mandatory language, it is substantially an injunction; if in terms of advice or caution, it is what has become known as an 'admonitory order.'" $88. An injunction may be granted upon a supplemental bill, though one founded upon the original bill has been dissolved upon its merits. So a bill of injunction may be granted, after a former bill for the same cause has been dismissed for not having been served on the defendant in time; but there should be an affidavit of some particular hardship, and no omission on the part of the claimant. So, in Georgia, by the act of 1842, the power of issuing a second injunction, when the first bill has been dismissed, is given to the Superior Court; and in Virginia, though an injunction be refused by a judge of the Circuit Court, and also by a judge of the Supreme Court, such refusals are no objection to an injunc tion in the same case, granted by another judge of the latter court.5 § 89. But a second injunction will not be granted for the same purpose, while the first is in force; and if the first has been withdrawn by the plaintiff, after it was served, that fact should be fully stated in the bill for a second. And on an application to reinstate an injunction, if the newly-discovered equity could have been made available on the first trial, by the use of ordinary care and attention, the application should be refused. So an ex parte injunction will not be granted on a new bill, or an amended bill, when a previous and similar injunction on the same parties was dissolved for want of equity. So a second injunction in the same cause, upon grounds, cannot be granted, if the new grounds existed new when the first bill was filed. Nor successive injunctions upon different grounds, which might have been put at issue in one proceeding. So, in New York, after an injunction has been refused by the chancellor or vice-chancellor before whom the bill was filed, the plaintiff cannot, since the revised statutes, apply to an injunction master, or vice-chancellor acting as injunction master, for an injunction upon a new bill upon substantially the same grounds.3 § 90. It is the general rule, that an injunction cannot be granted against a person who is not a party to the cause." And a complainant cannot avoid the necessity of making particular persons parties, by waiving all claim against them. in his bill, where it is necessary to take an account against the defendant, and where he has a right to have such persons before the court, they being interested in the account, in order to save the necessity of a future litigation with them." But an injunction inhibiting a defendant and all other persons from selling slaves, until a further order of the court, prevents a valid sale of the slaves, on execution against the defendant, although in favor of persons not parties to the suit in chancery. § 91. One owner of land over which a street is laid out cannot enjoin the completion of such street for want of notice to another." § 91 a. Where a statute provided that no injunction should issue without a bond, it was held to preclude the commonwealth from this remedy. The court say: "The words are broad and general. They apply to all cases, and we cannot see upon what principle we could except a case in which the commonwealth is plaintiff. But the commonwealth can give |