362. Casas ruled and adjudged in the 1796. jundlidn may ilfue on the exhibit of deeds, writings, or other vas: evidence; but the former cites Vernon, where not a word is faid on the fubjeét, and the latter refers to no authority. _ On the fmnd ground, it was urged, thatthe eomplainanfs elaying ` his fuit, is slligned in all the books of pra&ice, as a good rea- fon for ditfolving an injunétion. a Han-. Pr. Cb. 259. 16. 17. Pr. in Cb. 508. In this cafe there has never been even an at- ‘ tempt to ferve a fabpama; and the propert being within the jurifdiétion of the Court, the defendants (who are not, however, ` proved by allidavit to be reiident abroad) might- have beenfll- penaed even in Anylerdam. If a _/iryarua is not ferved, the on-` _ iyuexcufe which can be allowed, and which mult beiproved, is t the party cannot be found ;—-but the attempt to {ind mult be made. · - Du Pmcqau and Dallas, for the complainant, premifed that . they were deiirous in any mode to obtain ahearingahrl decilion _ on the merits of the caufe; and offered to meet the adferfe counfel irjrmter, either on the claim of the defendants, or of the parties for whom he interpofed, upon an anfwer to the prefent Bill, upon a Crofs Bill, or upon a Bill of Interpleader. If this overture - was rejeéied, the inference mult be concluiivr in favor_of the complainant, and the Court will pay_no regard to a motion rriade in behalf of perfons, whofe interelfs are not involved in the exiiiing caufe, and who preferring this inlidious courfe, re- fufe to appear, for the purpok of enabling the complainant to_ conteii their preteniions. But, in anfwer to the two unds uggzd for dilfolving the -in°un§lion, it was contended, rg That, . . al ugh an ailidavit _of the`truth` of the faéls contained in the Bill, is a `regular, and, perhaps, the moll; general foundation for an injun€tion, it is not the only foundation, on which it iifues. ‘ _ Where the Bill {lates an equity, depending on the difcover of , the defendant; or a relief is pra ed upon circumitances 'hap•. penihg within the knowledge ol, the complainant, and feveral other analogous cafes, the ailidavit of the party is the bell evi- ` dence of w rich the fub'e& admits; but a Court of Equity will not, an more than a Court of Law, confine itfelf to one kind of proog where there are various kinds of equal validity; much lefs will it adopt an inferior in exclulion of a higher kind. Sup·· pofe the faél: depends on a record; the law fays, that a record is the only regular proof of its own exiitence; and yet if the rule in Chancery is as inflexible, as it is Rated to be, the necef- · lity for tht ailidavit of the interelted party cannot be fuperfedcd by exhibiting the record itfelf. In the prefent cafe, would the _ complainants allidavit be more fatisfaéiory to prove the con- tents of the Power of Attorney, than the infpeétion of the in- llrument itfelf, as an eihibit` in the caufe? But, it is not on general principles alone, that the regularity of the proceeding is . - · _ ‘ maintained:
�
