ground for dissolving an injunction. Yet it is to be observed that the rule is applicable only where defendant is so situated that he can not expedite the cause himself. If, therefore, defendant is in such a position that he can proceed, the reason for the rule no longer exists and the rule itself falls; cessat ratio, cessat ipsa lex. But where defendants, having no personal knowledge of the equities of the bill upon which the injunction was granted, deny them upon information and belief, complainant having neglected to make a party defendant who was personally cognizant of the facts, and who should have been joined in the bill, the injunction will be dissolved." § 943. If the question involved on an application for a dissolution is not a question of fact, but one of law, as, for example, concerning the legal interpretation and construction to be placed upon certain mining rights, which from their nature are such that the answer can not deny the equity of the injunction, so as to bring the case within the established rule to entitle complainant to a dissolution, the motion will be refused, although the injunction may be modified to meet the exigencies of the case. But the party in whose favor an injunction has been granted may at any time withdraw it, and its discontinuance depends entirely upon his pleasure.⭑ 3 § 944. When a proper ground for the injunction is admitted by the answer, or sufficient equity is conceded by the answer as a foundation for the writ, and there yet remains an unsettled dispute between the parties, the injunction will not be dissolved, but will be continued until the hearing or further order of the court. Nor is the plea of the statute of limitations, in the answer, sufficient cause to entitle defendant to a dissolution. 6 § 945. While the verification of an injunction bill by the oath of complainant, or other person cognizant of the facts, is 'Schermerhorn v. Merrill, 1 Barb. 511. 'De Groot v. Wright, 3 Halst. Ch. 516. Boston etc. v. New Jersey etc., 2 Beas. 215. 'Duckett v. Dalrymple, 1 Rich. Law, 143. Chase v. Manhardt, 1 Bland, 333. • Hutchins d. Hope, 12 Gill & J. 245. always requisite, yet if there are several complainants, the oath of any one of them will suffice. It follows, therefore, that an injunction will not be dissolved on the ground that one only of several complainants has sworn to the truth of the averments in the bill, since the oath of any one of several joint complainants is sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule.1 1 Hemphill v. Ruckersville Bank, 3 Geo. 435. § 946. Object and purpose of the bond. 947. Discretion of the court in the absence of statute. 948. Order ineffectual until bond is given; bond operative from time of filing. 949. Insufficiency of bond. 950. Extent of liability. 951. Consideration; condition broken by dissolution in part. 952. New bond, when required. 953. Liabilities of sureties. 954. Liabilities of sureties. § 946. The complainant in an injunction suit is usually required, as a condition precedent to obtaining an interlocutory injunction, to file a bond, with sufficient sureties, conditioned for the payment to defendant of all costs and damages that may accrue to him in the event of the injunction being improperly issued. These bonds being regulated by statute, differ in the different states, their general purpose and object, however, being everywhere the same, viz., to protect defendant from any wrongful interference with his rights, and to reimburse him for all damages and costs incurred by reason of an injunction improperly issued. § 947. In the absence of any statute prescribing the conditions of an injunction bond, it rests in the discretion of the court to fix the terms upon which the relief may be granted, and where complainant gives such bond as is required by the court, and fails to prosecute his suit successfully, he is liable for all damages sustained by reason of the injunction.1 And it has been held that where complainant's right is clear and the infraction of that right is satisfactorily established, no security need be required to protect defendant against such damages as may be incurred by reason of the injunction.2 § 948. An order for an injunction is considered ineffectual until the required bond is executed, and it has even been held that the order need not be regarded until the security is given.3 The bond becomes operative and the obligation thereunder attaches from the time of filing it with the proper officer of the court. And the protection afforded by the bond extends to all defendants in the injunction suit, regardless of whether they were served with process, provided they conform to the requirements of the injunction." 949. Insufficiency of the bond does not of itself constitute ground for a dissolution of the injunction in the first instance, but a reasonable time should be allowed for filing a new bond, the injunction meanwhile continuing in force." Indeed, a motion to dissolve based upon the inadequacy of the bond, would seem to be not well founded, where there is no suggestion that complainant is insolvent and unable to respond individually in damages, since it is always competent for the court to require additional security. And where the writ is properly granted in other respects, it will not be reversed because the bond is for an insufficient sum, if the defendant is not injured thereby. Nor is the bond vitiated by the insertion of conditions which, though not required by law, are 347. 8 Newell v. Partee, 10 Humph. 325. Lothrop v. Southworth, 5 Mich. 436. Cumberland etc. v. Hoffman etc., 39 Barb. 16. Beauchamp v. Supervisors etc., 45 Ill. 274; Gamble v. Campbell, 6 Fla. 'Crawford v. Paine, 19 Iowa, 172. Drake v. Phillips, 40 Ill. 388. nevertheless not contrary to law, such conditions being regarded merely as surplusage.1 950. Where the bond is conditioned for the payment of the judgment enjoined, the obligors will be held liable at law for this amount, although complainant may have been so far justified in resorting to equity as to preclude a decree against him for damages upon dissolving the injunction.2 But where the purpose of the injunction is merely to restrain the sale of a specific article of property under execution, a bond given by one not a party to the judgment is considered in equity only as a security to the obligee for such injury as may actually accrue, and not for the whole amount of the debt, even though it be so conditioned.3 § 951. The suspension and delay occasioned by an injunction are considered as a sufficient consideration, prima facie, for the bond.4 And it is held that the condition of the bond is broken by a dissolution of the injunction in part, as well as by a total dissolution, so that a right of action may accrue, although the writ has not been wholly dissolved. And in an action upon the bond, the court will not examine the grounds on which the injunction was awarded, and will not inquire whether the writ was properly or improperly issued." § 952. In continuing an injunction, a court of equity may require additional security, or a bond with new and enlarged conditions. And it may order the new bond to be given in place of the old and as a substitute for it, and the old bond may thereby be discharged without the consent of the obligee." But if the order of the court be not substantially complied with, as where by mistake of the clerk the new bond is conditioned merely for the payment of the costs, the former bond is not discharged." 'Johnson v. Vaughan, 9 B. Mon. 217. * Hunt v. Scobie, 6 B. Mon. 469. • White v. Clay's Exr's., 7 Leigh, 68. Kent v. Bierce, 7 Ohio, 2d part, 209. |