SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 143

exceed, at any one time, the sum of ten thousand dollars current
money, then and from thenceforth these presents and every matter

must be taken to be true, and if the equity of the bill is sworn away by the
answer, the injunction must be dissolved. Colvin v. Warford, 17 Md. 433;
Hubbard v. Mobray, 20 Md. 165; Webster v. Hardesty, 28 Md. 592; Phila.
Trust Co. v. Scott, 45 Md. 451; Dougherty v. Piet, 52 Md. 425: Wood v. Pat-
terson, 4 Md. Ch. 335; Harris v. Sangston, Ibid, 394. And as to matters
within the knowledge of the defendant. Doub v. Barnes. 1 Md. Ch. 127;
1 Bland. 333. And so much of the bill as is not denied by the answer is
taken to be true. Cronis.e v. Clark, 4 Md. Ch. 403.

But allegations in the answer not responsive to the bill, but setting up dis-
tinct matters of avoidance, can have 110 effect, on this motion, unless proved.
Hutchins v. Hope, 7 Gill, 123: S. C. 12 G. & J, 244. If any one of the ma-
terial allegations of the bill remains unanswered, the injunction will be
continued till final hearing. Brown v. Stewart, 1 Md. Cn. 88.

When the cause is heard upon bill, answer and replication, the replication
has no effect at this stage, because the answer, so far as responsive is to be
taken as true, and the only effect of the replication is to determine the
nature and extent of the issue between the parties, and to regulate the onus
of proof with a view to final hearing. Dougherty v. Piet. 52 Md. 425.

Under the Code an answer without oath, when the bill does not require
an answer under oath, is sufficient to put the cause at issue and to authorize
an appeal from an order granting an injunction upon final hearing. But to
sustain a motion to dissolve an injunction, the answer must be sworn to,
whether the oath be required by the bill or not. Bouldin v. Balto. 15 Md.
18; Mahaney v. Lazier, 16 Md. 69. At a hearing of the motion on bill, answer
and proof, the answer of a corporation, under its corporate seal, without
oath, is not equivalent to the answer of an individual under oath, and is not
such a denial of the equity of the bill as will authorize a dissolution. Bouldin
v. Bait. 15 Md. 18.

An answer which does not deny the averments in which the equity of the
bill consists, but states " that respondent does not believe and cannot admit
that the said attorney made any such arrangement or contract as that set
forth in the bill," is not sufficient to dissolve an injunction. Kent v. Ricards,
3 Md. Ch. 393. But a statement that defendant "does not believe and denies"
a material averment, is sufficient. Ins. Co. v. Scott, 45 Md. 451. If the
answer neither admits nor denies the allegations of the bill, they must be
proved upon the final hearing. On a motion to dissolve, they are to be taken
as true. Briesch v. McCauley, 7 Gill, 189.

Under Rev. Code, Art. 65, sec. 68, the Court may order testimony to be
taken, at the instance of either party, pending a motion to grant or dissolve
an injunction. From an order refusing further time to take testimony on a
motion to dissolve no appeal lies. Hill v. Reifsnider. 39 Md. 429.

When the averments of the bill are untrue, the defendant should file his
answer and then move to dissolve. Frostburg v. Stark, 47 Md. 838. When
the material allegations of the bill are denied by the answer, and not over-
come by testimony, the injunction should be dissolved. Voshell v. Hynson,
26 Md. 83. The testimony of one witness is not of itself sufficient to coun-
tervail the effect of a sworn answer; there must be two witnesses, or one
with corroborating circumstances. Gelstan v. Rullman, 15 Md. 261. See
Hopkins v. Stump, 2 H. & J. 301. Rev. Code, Art. 65, sec. 37.

When the cause is set down not for final heating, but simply on motion to
dissolve, it is in most cases irregular on such hearing to dismiss the bill; it