
    Jesse Vliet v. Thomas Lowmason and George K. Lowmason.
    Where the defendant against whom the gravamen of the charge rests has fully answered the complainant’s bill, the injunction will be dissolved, although other defendants have not answered.
    The complainant filed his bill in this cause to obtain an injunction to restrain proceedings at law by Thomas Lowmason, one of the defendants, against the complainant and George K. Lowmason, the other defendant, for the recovery of a promissory note given by them to the said Thomas Lowmason, and which it was insisted in the bill that the payee was not entitled in equity to recover against the complainant. The defendant Thomas Lowmason, by his answer, denied the whole equity of the bill. No answer was filed by George K. Lowmason, the other defendant.
    The cause was heard upon motion to dissolve the injunction, on bill and answer.
    
      Wilson, for complainant,
    insisted that, although one of the defendants, by his answer, denied the whole equity of the bill, the injunction could not be dissolved unless an answer w’as filed by all the defendants.
    
      Vroom, contra,
   The Chancellor.

Thomas Lowmason, whose rights°alone are affected by the injunction, has fully answered, denying the equity of the complainant’s bill. The other defendant is one of the makers of the note upon which the action is brought, to restrain which the injunction issued. He can have no interest in answering the bill, nor can his answer avail the complainant. The general rule is, that where there are several defendants, all must answer before the injunction will be dissolved ; but to this there are exceptions. Where the defendant against whom the gravamen of the charge rests has fully answered, the injunction will be dissolved, although no other defendant has answered Injunction dissolved, 
      
       See accord, Depeyster v. Graves, 2 John. Chan. R. 148; Jones v. Magill, 1 Bland. 190; Stewart v. Barry, Ibid, 192; Williams v. Hall, Ibid, 194; Chaplin v. Betty, Ibid, 197; Fong v. Oliver, Ibid, 199; Wakeman v. Gillespy, 5 Paige, 112; Higgins v. Woodward, 1 Hop. 342; Noble v. Wilson, 1 Paige, 164; 1 Hoffman’s Ch. Pr. 360.
     