SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 141

said Thomas Clagett, before the said first day of October, in the
year eighteen hundred and thirty, the said advances, loans, en-

65, sec. 68, to be used on the motion for an injunction; or he may await the
coming in of the answer, and move upon the merits therein confessed. Ibid.
The object of an injunction granted before answer is to preserve all things
in their then condition; not to determine any right by anticipation, or to
undo or restore anything, except in so far as it may consequentially follow-
from the operation of the injunction. Murdock's Case, 2 Bland, 461; State
v. Railway Co. 18 Md. 193.

An injunction may be granted in any case on bill alone, before a subpoena
has been issued, except to stay proceedings at law in an action of ejectment
by a lessor, or to recover mortgaged property. Jones v. Magill, 1 Bland, 177.

A decree requiring money to be paid into Court, enjoining the defendants
from further proceedings at law, and requiring them to inter plead and
answer, is interlocutory, and at all times, prior to final decree, subject to
revision and alteration, being merely ancillary to further proceedings; and
may be rescinded when improvidently or prematurely passed. Earth v.
Rosenfeld, 36 Md. 604.

The issuing of an injunction does not necessarily require a bond, for that
is a matter resting in the discretion of the Judge. White v. Davidson, 8 Md.
169. Cf. Eakle v. Smith, 27 Md. 483; Rev. Code, Art. 65. sec. 77.

3. Amendments. "If the plaintiff amend his bill, the injunction is at an
end, unless it is expressly provided by the order that an amendment shall be
without prejudice. And the Court is governed in the exercise of its discre-
tion to continue or otherwise the injunction by the nature of the amend-
ment and the circumstances under which it is made. In some cases, where
it was sought to amend a bill by inserting additional matters of fact, an
affidavit has been required that such new matter was not known to the
party at the time of filing the original bill." Alexanders Ch. Prac. 90.

When an injunction has been granted and a motion to dissolve made, it is
not usual to ask for, or for the Court to grant, leave to amend the bill. Bush
v. Linthicum, 59 Md. 345.

No appeal lies from an order granting leave to a complainant to amend his
bill in certain particulars by a day named, and oa failure to make applica-
tion to amend and to file the amended bill within the time limited, declaring
that the injunction previously issued would be dissolved, and in the mean-
time continuing the injunction till further order;—such order is merely in-
terlocutory. Hill v. Reifsnider, 39 Md. 439.

The making of a substantial amendment dissolves the injunction, of
course, unless expressly saved. Binney's Case, 2 Bland, 99.

When the case presented by a proposed amendment is one which an injunc-
tion may be properly awarded, the Court should allow the amendment and
continue the injunction. Keerl v. Keerl, 28 Md. 161. Although after a de-
murrer has been allowed the bill is out of Court and no order can be subse-
quently made in the cause, the Court will, in some cases, where it sees that
the defect pointed out by the demurrer can be remedied by amendment,
and substantial justice requires it, make a special order at the hearing of
the demurrer adapted to the circumstances of the case. Ibid. See Rev.
Code, Art. 65, sec. 38. Equity Rules, 29, 30. As to amendment by inter-
lineation, see Walsh v. Smyth, 3 Bland, 407.

When the operation of an injunction to restrain a party from tearing down
the end of a house was stayed by a bond, and the defendant went on to tear
down and erect a house on the ground in dispute, the continuance of an in-