364 Cam ruled and adjudged in the 1796 ned beyond the jstarneaen of the Court, it would, perhipr, he ¢v~apri·opertoinEiluponamoreri‘€;l praélieethanhas been " ed. But the didblution of injunelion would, putthepropertyoutofdrepoweroftheOonrt;·andineapat=i»- ° tateutftomdoingjulticeheteafterto the parties, aceudingtu the real merits of their refpeélive pretentious. It is proper, however, to obferve, that I do not thinkan aidavit-totheeon· tests of a Bill, it the only foundation for ilfuing an injun&ion. H `•n,' on this point, is hirnfelf a refpedahle authority, dion hecltes no other book :—hut, independent of all written· authorities, reafon and the diétatee of jultiee require, that - other proof belides the party': oath lhould be allowed. Nor, under all_the circumitancer, can I decide, that the delay which has occurred is without a reafonahk excufe. It will he pro- · , however, in continu' the ' °uu&ion,- to appnl` e the mplainant, that, unlefs ge caufe to the contrary is {hewn, Ilhall-be for didblving it, atthe next tenn.·. t . - ’ Wrnsort, ¤ :-—'.l`his motion iszruade on two. grounds ze tlL‘That the·injun&ion originally illired on an improper foun- dation; and ad. 'I`hat there has been an unreafonable delay in ` bringing the-fuit to a dccilion under it. .It does not appearittx nre, however, that either of thefe grounds is f¤Ecictitly fu}- poned. The irregularity tells fodely on the want of·an·£Ed•· vit; but this, though it is frequently, and, perhaps, generally, tltentode offproceeding, ia not, in my opinion,. thehnly one. In very cafe nowbefore the Court, rhe evidence 0£•hePoit·• ‘ et of Attorney, operating &é}uaIly as a transfer of .the=p1·o- perty, is certainly lironger evidence, than an ailiglatit nf. the rnterelled party; With refpe& to the delay, it it {wasn to have happened through inadvertauee. and miilake ;. a.nil·¤¤ evi- dence ‘ a wilfubprouulkination has appeared inthe eourfeof the difeuihon. n the _contrary,` an overture has`·heen‘-made to bring the merits to a hearing, as expeditiouil as can he de- vifed. It is to be coniidered, likewife, that iftlze injunction is lliil'olved,- the`Court put it out of their power to do ehélual juiiice; but, if it is continued, gufiice can be done, eventually, to the injured party; whether t e complainant, the defendant, or Melfrr. Palloch, ihall eiiablilh a title to the property. ‘ ` · The motion refufetl. 7W¤n‘rot¤’s Executors wr_/iu Lowes!. ILL in Equity. The Bill was filed in Oflohr t7g3, to open an account, which had been fettled and ligned by complainants, in April, 1781, touching the tranéaéhons . etwctn
�
