
    WILLIAM WESTCOTT v. GIFFORD AND COSSABOOM.
    If, on examining the complainant’s claim of title to timber land, from which the defendant has been restrained from cutting timber, the court is clearly satisfied that the complainant has no title, the injunction will not be retained, though an action of trespass for cutting be pending at law, but will be dissolved.
    On the thirty-first of July, eighteen hundred and forty-four, William Westcott, with other complainants, exhibited his bill, setting up title to a tract of cedar swamp in Egg Harbor. Westcott claimed as heir-at-law of his father, Blazier Westcott; deducing his title from surveys made in August, seventeen hundred and thirty-nine, and February, seventeen hundred and forty-one. The bill stated that the defendants were cutting timber on the premises, and were irresponsible, and that an action of trespass for the cutting had been brought in the Supreme Court, and prayed an injunction.
    Injunction was granted on the ninth of August, eighteen hundred and forty-four.
    The defendants presented their petition to the court, stating that they and those under whom they claim, had been in possession of the premises for nearly a century, and that the complainants were engaged in cutting timber on the premises, and were insolvent, and praying that the complainants might be enjoined, from cutting. This injunction was also granted.
    On the twenty-eighth of August, eighteen hundred and forty-four, the defendants put in their answer to the bill; and the injunction obtained by the complainants was dissolved in October, eighteen hundred and forty-four.
    In November, eighteen hundred and forty-four, Westcott filed a new bill, stating that, since the filing of the first bill, he had discovered that his father had no title to the premises, and setting up a title under George West, deducing title to George West, from ancient surveys. On this bill, an injunction was granted November twelfth, eighteen hundred and forty-four, so that both parties were again enjoined from cutting.
    To this bill, an answer was put in, and the parties were heard on cross-motions, each party moving to dissolve the injunction obtained by the other.
    
      Sloan and Browning, for the complainant.
    
      W. Potts and Jeffers, for the defendants.
   The Chancellor,

after an elaborate examination of the title deeds exhibited, which it would be unprofitable to report, said he was satisfied there was nothing in the show of title made by the complainant; that his own exhibits disproved his title, and that the injunction obtained by the complainant would, therefore, be dissolved, notwithstanding the pendency of his action at law for the cutting.

The' injunction obtained by the complainant was dissolved, and that obtained by the defendants was retained.

It was said by the Chancellor, in this case, that an order may be obtained to prove deeds, viva vooe, at the hearing, saving all just exceptions, and that, on due service of a copy of such order, such proof may be made at the hearing; that a deed which requires nothing more than proof of handwriting, may be so proved. 1 Smith’s Ch. Pr. 44.  