GIBSON v. TILTON. 355

evidence without which it will not act, is one of a totally different
nature from that, which involves the verity or effect of a judicial
proceeding, which had been originated and completed entirely in
another State; and with the formation of which it could have no
concern. The Constitution, and act of Congress of the United
States, therefore, can have no bearing upon the subject now under
consideration.

With regard to the affidavit to this answer, it is certainly not
couched in phraseology as full and exact as4 it ought to have been.
But it is conceived to be expressed in terms sufficiently clear and
strong to sustain a prosecution for perjury, if it had been made in
this State, and the answer had been found to be false in any
material particular. And although, as it would seem, no such
prosecution could be sustained Jiere upon a false oath taken in
another State however correct and positive the affidavit might have
been; yet the parties may, should the answer turn out to be false
or the affidavit be ascertained "to be spurious, be punished for prac-
tising an imposition on the court, (h)

These preliminary objections being removed, it appears, on a
careful consideration of the answer, that it is, in all respects, suf-
ficient; and that it has completely sworn away all the equity of the
complainant's bill.

I know of no such rule as that which was insisted on by the
plaintiff's solicitor; that where the facts on which the complain-
ant's equity rests are alike within the knowledge of both parties;
and the allegation of them by each in an opposite bearing is
equally positive, the injunction must be continued. The rule is,
that on a motion to dissolve, the facts on which the plaintiff's
equity rests must be admitted or not denied, or he cannot obtain a
continuance of the injunction. But if they are positively denied
by the answer the injunction must be dissolved, (i) There maybe
exceptions to this rule, but this case is not one of them.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the injunction heretofore granted
is hereby dissolved.

After which testimony was taken and the case brought before
the court on a final hearing; when it appearing, that the plaintiff
had failed to sustain his case by proof, by a decree passed on the
4th of November 1829, the bill was dismissed with costs.

(A) Omealy v. Newell, 8 East, 872.—(i) Eden, Inj, 86.