SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 139

Salmon may execute before the said first said day of October, in
the j ear eighteen hundred and thirty, and shall also indemnify the

ft om interfering with such possession and use, and that he be commanded
to forbear the repetition of acts which impeded the faculty in the enjoyment
of then lights Held that such an injunction did not go beyond the legiti-
mate office of the process nor have the character of a judicial writ Ibid
After dissolution of the injunction, defendant filed a petition stating that
complainants in pursuance of the injunction had taken possession of the
ptoperty to which defendant yielded and prayed for an order restoring
possession to him Held that if defendant surrendered a possession pre
viously held by him, he did that which the Court, by its injunction, had not
commanded, and for which he had no right to ask redress Ibid. In the
case of private nuisances the Court would after hearing the pirties be
authorized not only to interpose preventively but may order them to be
abated Lamborn v Covington Co 2 Md Ch 409

Equity has jurisdiction to compel a defendant by means of an injunction
specially worded to do a substantive act whether such injunction be merely
ancillary to the relief prayed or the ultimate object of the suit Carlisle v
Steventon, 3 Md Ch 499 Pragmatic trespassers, pending an injunction bill,
may be made to remove erections made by them on the propertj la contro
versj Mm docks Case 2 Bland 461 470 488

Interfeience with water nghts and nuisances furnish the most frequent
occasions for the granting of mandatory injunctions Cole Silver Co v
Virginia Water Co 1 Sawyer 685 Corning v Troy factory 40 N Y 191. In
Audenreid v R R Co 68 Pa St 870 Murdochs Case, 2 Bland, 461, and
Wash Univ v Green 1 Md Ch 97, aie examined

SIX PRACTICE 1 Bill Exhibits Hearing &c Although a bill may
pray for lelief by way of injunction yet if it does not pray for the process
of injunction the process will not be granted But such prayer need not
be included in the prayer for process of subpoena if it is sufficiently set
forth elsewhere in the bill Webb v Ridgely 38 Md 34 Union Bank v
Kerr, 2 Md Ch 460

The documents &c pertaining to the application or copies of them,
should be filed with the ball Union Bank v Poultney 8 G & J 324 Nus
baum v Stew 32 Md 315 Mahaney v Lazm, 16 Md 69 Haight v Burr, 19
Md 130 Conolly v Riley 35 Md 402 Hankey v. Abrahams, 28 Md 588,
Shoemaker v Bank 31 Md 396 Balto v Weatherby, 52 M 450

The mere oath of a party as to the existence of a debt of which he holds
the written evidence and which he does not file as an exhibit or satisfac
torily account for its non production, will not be regarded as proof of the
debt, and a bill fot an injunction failing to make such exhibit is fatally de-
fective Union Bank v Poultney 8 G & J 324 Lavpenheimer v Rosenbaum
25 Md 220 Millet v Marble Co 52 Md 645. Nor is this defect waived by
demurrer Ibid

The allegations of the bill need not be sustained by affidavits aliunde that
of the complainant Myers v Amey, 21 Md 306 But the bill may be sus-
tained by some other testimony sufficient to induce the Chancellor to credit
the truth of its statements Jones v Magill 1 Bland 177 An affidavit
that the facts stated in the bill are true to the best of complainant's know-
ledge and belief is sufficient Triebert v Burgess, 11 Md 459 Cooler Chase,
1 Bland, 136

The Judge to whom the application is made may take time for considera-
tion, and give notice to the parties to be affected or their counsel, and afford