WALSH v. SMYTH.—3 BLAND. 5

filed. Williams v. Hall, 1 Bland, 194, note; Billingslea v. Gilbert,
1 Bland, 566.

After which the bill, as appears by an endorsement on it, was
filed on the 1st of August, 1797, and on the next day there were
filed five separate injunction bonds, given by the plaintiff Robert
Walsh alone, with two sureties, to those stated in the bill, as it then
stood, to be the several holders of the bonds for the purchase
money. These injunction bonds were enclosed in a letter to the
register, from the plaintiff's solicitor, in which he says, "I believe
the securities are sufficient.'' It does not appear, that they were
by any note or writing approved by the Chancellor; but the injunc-
tion was immediately issued, and on the same day served on the
clerk of the General Court, in which Court the judgments had been
recovered, or the suits were then depending.

There does not appear to have been any petition or written ap-
plication to amend the bill, but upon the docket there is this entry,
" December Term, 1798, leave to amend bill by adding parties,
amended bill filed." There was, however, in fact, no separate
amended bill ever filed; but instead thereof, the original bill was
amended by making sundry interlineations, and then it is certified
at the end of it, that " on the 19th December, 1798, Robert Walsh
made oath, that this bill, as amended, is true to the best of his
knowledge, Samuel Harvey Howard."

There appears to have been several interlineations made in the
original bill; but, from the hand-writing of all, as well as from the
nature of some of them, it is difficult to determine whether they
are to be considered as mere corrections of the first draft of the
bill, made before it was submitted to the Chancellor, or as amend-
ments made under the leave. On adverting to the day of filing
the bill, and on comparing the original bill itself with the writ of
injunction, in which the name of Richard Emory is not mentioned,
it appears, that the following interlined sentence, " and hath also
endorsed and assigned one other of the said bonds, conditioned
for the payment *of seven hundred and fifty pounds, unto
a certain Richard Emory, who hath commenced suit in his
own name, as assignee of the said Smyth, and at October Term, in
the year seventeen hundred and ninety-eight, recovered judgment
thereon against your orator in the Western Shore General Court,"
inserted after the words, "for the recovery thereof," (*;) and also
the insertion of the name of Richard Emory in the prayer for the
injunction, and in other parts of the bill, as a new party, are to be
regarded as amendments under the leave. But it does not appear
that an injunction bond to Emory was ever filed, as was required
in favor of the other defendants; or, that any writ of injunction
was ever issued against him.