Cncurr Cover, Pettogwoaliie Diltrlél. 36r ownnatnes.TheBillthen relief,aeeomd' to the i equity of the cafe, and that ·· iyriitltiatlion might ilfueuig prevent uvvnfl thedefendants from transferring the ftoclt, or receiving], the 1 or intereltt and alfo to prevent the Regifter and anll-- U Clerkoftlie Treafury, andthe Cafhieroftheailginkoftlte ` mired Suter, rom allowtnga transfer, or in princi . or intereft of the {lock, pending the fuit. Path: hling the Bill: Du Parma exhibited to the Court the Power of Attorney duly authenticated, from the defendants to the ooiplpelainants; and ‘ hisowu aidavittftating, that he had infpe£ted books of the _ Treafury, where he faw that the identical ftock in queliion was regiltered in the names of the defendants. `Under thefe circum- itances the in'undlion iilired; but no jiebperm was ever taken out, nor any further proceedin s had in the fuit ·’till the pre- fent term,when Lewi: moved lhra rule to ihew caufe, why the injun&ion lhould not be ditfolved. Before the motion was ar- gued, Ds Pomtau filed another allidavit {Eating, that the delay in ifuing procefa was by miliake and accident; and not from mo- » ` tives of malice and opprellion; that he had heard`I.¢·w£:was to ‘ make the prefent motion near a year ago; and that in expec- - _ tation it would be matic, he had fufpended the proceedings on the part of the complainant, intending as foon as Lenoir lhould appear in the caufe to ferve him with the proeefs, as Clerk in I Court. Leavir admitted that he had been applied to about a year ago, not on behalf of the defendants, but of Media. Pol- Ixlu, who claimed the ftock (as he alledged) by virtue of a th- polit from the complainant himfelf ; but, he mlilted, that he had poliponed making his application to the Court one term, at _ the inltance of Du Pancras:. Thefe fa&e being underltood, · Lewis endeavourcd to fupport his motion on two grounds: . tit. That the injunétion had ill`ued irregularly, as there was no ` allidavit made of the truth of the allegations contained in the Bill; and ad. Thatthe complainanthad unrcafonably delayed brin ing the caufe to a hearing and decilion. On the jvf ground, he ohfcrved, that he did not object, becaufe the injunétion had iifued before a fulpcna was, ferved, as there were various cafes in which juliice could mt otherwife be attained; but in no cafe can an injun&ion be ilfued, or awarded, without a revious ` gdavit of the truth of the faéis ltazed in the B22 a iamgr. ‘.·aar.aza.aa·a 1-2 .2 . rowu . .4 a. r. Rep. C}:. r 2. a4. adidavit filed iftbpthis cafe? is iiot in fupport of the Bill, but in proof of an extrintic, immaterial, faéts and the Power of Attorney. was not of itfelf fuicient. Such powers, given in a foreign country, do not aiwa , on their ace, explain the meaning of the parties; nor can thhy be deemed competent evidence of the right of property. It is true that, Herr. P. Cb. aaa, and Hind: 583, mention, that an in- . ' Za jun&l,¤¤
�
