¶1 This- cause comes before- us upon- the- appeal of the defendants, from an interlocutory order of the Court below, which over-ruled a motion to dissolve the injunction, and continued it until the hearing. In the argument here, the injunction has been considered by the defendants’ counsel, as if it were an ordinary one, against a judgment at law. It is, in truth, a special one,r the dissolution of which, might work irreparable mischief to the plaintiff for what greater injury, in a worldly point of view, could be done to an old man, long past the age of active labor, than to take from him all his land and slaves, worth fifteen or twenty thousand dollars? In the cases of Capehart v. Mhoon, Busb. Eq. 30, and Lloyd v. Heath, Ibid, 39, and the cases therein referred to, the principles of the two species of injunctions, are fully discussed and settled. In an injunction, like the present, the bill may be read as an affidavit, in opposition to the answer, and the *33 Court will not dissolve tbe injunction, when the rights of the parties are contested, until an opportunity is given to the plaintiff to establish his case by proof.
¶2 This view of the case makes it unnecessary to consider whether the answers of the defendants are full, fair, and directly responsive to all the material allegations of the bill.
¶3 Our opinion, then, is, that the interlocutory order made in the Court below was right, and must be affirmed with costs.
¶4 Pee OueiaM. Decree below affirmed.