
    AROET M. HATCH v. DAVID DANIELS.
    On the positive denial of the allegations of the bill on which the complainant rests his equity, an injunction will be dissolved.
    The bill in this case states that in eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, the complainant and Lewis M. Hatch and Daniel F. Fleming were partners in trade in New York, under the name and style of A. M. Hatch and Company. That said firm became embarrassed, and was subsequently dissolved, having, before the dissolution, become indebted to the defendant, David Daniels, for goods furnished them by him, for part of which they gave to said defendant their partnership notes, the other part of said indebtedness remaining in the shape of book account against them.
    The bill then charges that Fleming, one of the said firm, on a fair adjustment of accounts with the complainant, would, as the complainant believes, be much indebted to him, but that he had left New York and gone to reside at Charleston, South Carolina; “and that complainant has reason to believe, and does believe, and therefore oharges, that Fleming has either paid off the said notes of the said firm of A. M. Hatch and Company to Daniels, or made some arrangement respecting the same; and respecting the said book account of Daniels, by which the same constitute no valid or legal claim in favor of the said Daniels against the complainant, or the said firm of A. M. Hatch and Company; and that the object is to recover the amount thereof from the complainant, in the name of the said Daniels, but for the use and benefit, wrongfully, of the said Fleming.”
    The bill prays a discovery, to enable the complainant to make defence in an action at law brought in the name of Daniels on the said notes and book account, “ and that the said Daniels may answer what arrangement exists between him and Fleming (if any) respecting said notes and account; whether the same now belong to him, or did belong to him at the time of commencing said action and at this time; ” and whether he is not lending his name for the prosecution of the same, for the benefit of Fleming; and that Daniels may be enjoined from further prosecuting the said action at law, and that said notes may be given up to be canceled, and the said account receipted and discharged, and for further relief.
    On this bill an injunction was granted to restrain the said suit at law, which was noticed'for trial on the third Tuesday of October, eighteen hundred and forty-four.
    The answer positively denies the existence of the alleged facts of which a discovery is prayed, and on the supposed existence of which the injunction was granted.
    
      Hubbell moved to dissolve the injunction.
    
      W. Pennington, contra.
    
   The Chancellor.

The general rule is, that on the positive denial of the allegations of the bill on which the complainant rests his equity, an injunction will be dissolved. There is nothing in this case to induce the court to retain the injuno* tion. The injunction will be dissolved.

Order accordingly.  