GIBSON v. TILTON. 353

prescribing the mode of authenticating records and judicial pro-
ceedings from the other States of the Union. In answer to which
it was urged that the answer was entirely sufficient, and that the
latter objections could not now be made.

On the hearing of a motion to dissolve an injunction, objections
of every kind to the answer may be made, and are then in order.
Because, the motion itself, in its very nature, is founded upon the
correctness, and sufficiency of the answer in every particular. Hence
the plaintiff may, on the very day of hearing the motion, file excep-
tions to the answer, and have them then heard and decided
upon. The defendant can have no cause to complain of sur-
prise; because, by his motion he calls upon the plaintiff to show
cause why, after having well and sufficiently answered the bill, the
injunction should not be dissolved. And, having thus planted
himself upon the sufficiency of his answer, at that time, and for
that purpose, he stands pledged to sustain it in all respects; or he
must fail in his motion.(a) All the objections that have been
made are, therefore, now in season and must be decided upon.

The act, relied upon to show the insufficiency of the certificate,
is one of those laws passed by Congress in pursuance of the power
delegated to them, by the first section of the fourth article of the
Constitution of the United States. That delegation of power
enables Congress to prescribe the manner in which the public acts,
the records and the judicial proceedings of every other State shall
be proved, and the effect thereof, in this State. But, the affidavit,
and certificate appended to this answer are not in any sense public
acts, records, or judicial proceedings of Delaware. They are parts
of a judicial proceeding of Maryland; such as have been called
for, and authorized by the usage and law of Maryland, not of
Delaware:

According to the long established practice of this court, in vari-
ous cases, some of which have been recognised by legislative
enactments,(6) it will act upon the evidence, derived from affidavits
taken in a foreign country. Prior to the revolution a dedimus was
always sent to obtain an answer from a defendant resident in any
of the neighbouring colonies or in a foreign State,(c) and now com-
missions are often sent to other States of this Union,(d) and into

(a) Eden, Inj. 78; Alexander v. Alexander, MS., 13th December, 1817.—(6) 1797,
eh. 114, s. 5.—(c) Chan. Pro. lib. D. D. No. J. folio 6, 59, &c.—(d) Hunt v. Wit-
liams, Taylor's Rep. 318.

45