
    Fanning against Dunham.
    
      April 2d.
    
    Though an order may be discharged by motion or petition, on proper grounds, yet the most regular course is to discuss the merits of the order upon a rehearing.
    
    Where new facts are stated in a supplemental bill, a fresh injunction may be awarded, though the former injunction was dissolved on the merits. •
    
      J. T. IRVING, for the plaintiff, moved for leave to file a supplemental bill, and for an injunction to stay the sale of mortgaged premises, founded on the matter therein contained, or to set aside an order of the 7th of December, 1813, dissolving the injunction founded on the original bill, on terms, or for a rehearing thereon.
    .Henry, contra.
   The Chancellor

was strongly inclined to think the;

order of the 7th of December, 1813, erroneous; 1. Because it dissolved the injunction as to the mortgage only, when that, and all the other securities held by the defendant, stood on the same footing, and involved the same equity; and, 2. Because it imposed on the plaintiff as a condition of staying the dissolution, that he should bring into Court the money due on the mortgage, when the mortgage being given as a collateral security, with other securities, for many complicated dealings* the plaintiff could not well ascertain the sum. But under the circumstances of the case, he said, that the more regular and advisable course would be to discuss the merits of that order upon a rehearing, especially as it was granted in the time of his predecessor, though, perhaps, such an order might be discharged upon motion or petition merely. (Newland’s Pr. 68, 69.)

But upon the new facts stated in the supplemental bill, he was of opinion, that a fresh injunction might be awarded, even though the former injunction had been dissolved upon the merits. (Travers v. Stafford, 2 Ves. 19. Amb. 104. Lingham v. Toule, 1 Anst. 189.)

Injunction granted.  