142 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

dorsetnents and other liabilities which the said Charles Salmon
shall incur or make on account of the said Thomas Clagett, not to

junction in its original form would be nugatory, but if the plaintiff had title
to said ground, he could amend the bill by making proper parties and pray-
ing for a different injunction. Hiss v. McCabe, 45 Md. 83, 83. After an
appeal had been taken, the plaintiff on dismissing the appeal, was allowed
to amend his bill, on which a new injunction was granted. McKim v. Odom,
3 Bland, 407. As to remanding a cause for the purpose of allowing amend-
ments, see Rev. Code. Art. 71, sec. 51: Clagett v. Hall, 9 G. & J. 82; Ben-
scotter v. Green, 60 Md. 327.

4. Answer. The answer to a bill for an injunction stated that the re-
spondent "does not believe and denies" the material averment of the bill.
The cause was heard upon bill and answer. Held, 1. That this statement
was responsive to and an express denial of the averment of the bill. 3.
That even if it were construed as a denial on information and belief, it was
sufficient to put complainant to the proof of the fact thus denied. 3. That
complainant having failed to support the averment in the bill by proof, the
injunction should be dissolved. Phila. Ins. Co. v. Scott, 45 Md. 451.

As to answer by a corporation, see Bouldin v. Salt. 15 Md. 18; Carpenter v.
Ins. Co. 4 Howard. 185; by an executor or administrator, Coale v. Chase, 1
Bland, 136.

A party submitting to answer, must answer fully and frankly, and he who
evidently holds back something cannot complain if he finds himself regarded
with suspicion and distrust, and be refused that to which he may be really
entitled, and under other circumstances might have obtained. Keighler v.
Sav. Co. 13 Md. 383.

On an application for an injunction, the defendant may instantly put in
his answer, and the Court is bound to give proper effect to it if filed before
the application is disposed of. Krone v. Krone, 27 Md. 77.

An order granting an injunction was affirmed on appeal and the cause re-
manded. The cause being reinstated and leave given to take proof, both
parties proceeded to take the same after notice and new parties were made.
On the day fixed for the hearing, two and a half years after the filing of the
answer, exceptions thereto were for the first time taken. Held, 1. That the
allowance of exceptions at this stage of the cause would not only be an un-
reasonable indulgence in itself and an encouragement to vexatious delays,
but a manifest injustice to the defendants who had incurred the expense of
taking proof upon the well grounded belief that the case was to be heard
upon its merits. 2. That the answer must be taken free from all objections
on account of irregularity or insufficiency, and, being responsive to the ma-
terial allegations of the bill, the burden of proof rests upon complainants.
Belt v. Blackburn, 29 Md. 227. As to effect of answer of one of several defend-
ants, see post "Motion to dissolve," and Annapolis v. Harwood, 32 Md. 472.

XX. SUSPENSION OP INJUNCTION BY GIVING BOND. When an appeal is
taken from an order granting an injunction, and an appeal bond is given,
the injunction is stayed, and its operation suspended, pending the appeal.
Gelston v. Sigmund, 27 Md. 345; Hiss v. McCabe, 45 Md. 77, and until judg-
ment shall be pronounced by the Appellate Court. Railway Co. v. Canton
Co. 24 Md. 500; Glenn v. Davis," 35 Md. 209. See Rev. Code, Art. 71, sec. 43.

XXI. MOTION TO DISSOLVE AND DISSOLUTION. When a motion to dis-
solve is heard upon bill and answer, the responsive allegations of the latter