140 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

said Charles Salmon from and against all bills, bonds or notes
which the said Charles Salmon shall sign or seal as surety for the

them an opportunity to be heard, in any case in which he may believe
that the purposes of justice will be thereby subserved. Barnum v. Gordon,
28 Md. 86.

An order directing an injunction to issue is not to be treated as a nullity
because it did not specifically define the matter upon which the writ was to
operate. The order must be construed with reference to the prayer and ob-
ject of the bill. Hamilton v. State, 32 Md. 348.

Upon the filing of the bill the defendant may instantly put in his answer
so as to prevent the granting of the injunction as prayed. Hall v. McPher-
son, 8 Bland, 529. On a motion for an injunction made, or submitted, after
filing of the answer, the answer is to be read, and where the facts forming
the equity of the bill are denied by the answer the injunction ought to be
refused. " Bell v. Purvis, 15 Md. 22; Lynn v. Mt. Savage Co. 84 Md. 604. It is
a well settled principle that if a defendant asserts positively that it is not
his intention to do a certain act, or to violate any particular right asserted
by the plaintiff, and there be no evidence to show the contrary, the Court
will neither grant nor continue an injunction in the face of such disclaimer.
Whalen v. Dalashmutt, 59 Md. 250. The fact that the bill was not filed till
after the injunction was ordered, is at most a mere irregularity which will
not cause a reversal of the order. Davis v. Reed, 14 Md. 152.

A complainant, on the tiling of the answer, is entitled to have the cause
set down for final hearing on bill and answer, and by so doing he admits the
truth of everything in the answer. Jones v. Magill, 1 Bland, 177, When
the cause stands simply on bill and answer, the complainant is the only
party competent to set it down for final hearing. Somerville v. Marbury, 7
G. & J. 276. A motion to reinstate an injunction is equivalent to an appli-
cation after bill and answer filed, and places the parties in the same position,
as to the facts to be considered, as upon motion to dissolve upon coming in
of an answer. State v. Railway Co. 18 Md. 194. In such a case the Court is
confined to the facts stated in the bill and to the answer to these facts. If the
statements of the bill be admitted, or not denied, or if new matter be set up
by way of avoidance, the injunction will be continued: matter set up in
avoidance or discharge, when the matter of avoidance is a distinct fact,
must be proved. Ibid.

No injunction should be granted on a bill by a married woman in her own
name, without the intervention of a next friend. Heck v. Vollmer, 39 Md.
507. If a party having applied to one Court of equity for an injunction, be
frustrated, and afterwards apply to another Court of concurrent jurisdiction
on the same grounds, without disclosing the first application, the defendant
may apply in a summary way for relief. Wood v. Bruce, 9 G. & J. 215. In
all ex parte applications the complainant must make a candid and full dis-
closure of all the facts. Sprigg v. Tel. Co. 46 Md. 67. And see supra sec. I.

As to demurrer to bill, see Dennison v. Yost, 61 Md. 140; Gorsuch v. Thomas,
57 Md. 338.

2. Interlocutory or preliminary injunction. The right of the plaintiff to
such immediate interposition of the Court depends entirely upon the suffi-
ciency of the facts charged in the bill, and if the allegations be not suffi-
ciently full, clear and definite in support of the right asserted and of its
violation in the manner charged, the defendant will not be restrained before
he is heard in his defence. Balto. v. Warren Co. 59 Md. 96. The plaintiff
may obtain leave to take testimony under the provisions of Rev. Code, Art.