
    Elijah G. Cattell v. William H. Nelson.
    On a notice of a motion to .dissolve an injunction given before answer filed, an answer filed after the notice, though it be filed ten days before the day fixed by the notice for the hearing'of the motion, cannot be read in support of the motion.
    On the 17th April, 1848, Elijah G. Cattell filed a bill against William H. Nelson, and obtained an injunction. On the 21st of April, 1848, no answer being then filed a notice was given, on the part of the deft., of a motion to be made on the 3d of May, 1848, to dissolve the injunction. On the 1st of May, 1848, an answer was put in.
    On the 3d of May, the day for which the motion to dissolve was noticed, the counsel of the respective parties appeared before the court.
    
      R. P. Thompson, of counsel for the defendant, offered to read the answer in support of the motion to dissolve.
    
      J. Wilsons for the complainant, objected, and referred to Rev. Stat. 908, sec. 16.
    The Chancellor said the answer could not be read.
    
      Mr. Thompson then moved, that the argument of the motion be postponed to some day, to be fixed by the court, beyond ten days from the filing of the answer.
   The Chancellor

said there must be a new notice. That when a party receives a notice of a motion to dissolve, he has a right to expect that the motion will be grounded on the casé as it exists at the time of the notice.  