give security for its forthcoming, it must be shown that there is danger of such removal beyond the jurisdiction of the

court.1

§ 8. Equity will interfere, at the instance of a remainderman in slaves, to prevent the owner of the life-estate from removing them out of the State; but not after such removal has taken place-especially before a right of partition has accrued.2

§ 9. Where slaves are taken from the owner for life, under an order of sequestration, to prevent a removal, and are hired out, equity will order the hires to be paid to such owner.3

§ 10. Where an amended bill alleged, that, since the original bill was filed, the defendant had sold three slaves claimed as partnership property, and that the complainant had good cause to believe that he was about to sell or remove beyond the jurisdiction of the court the remaining negroes belonging to the co-partnership; and the answer admitted the sale, and did not deny the intention to remove the resi due held, an injunction was proper, and an order made by the commissioner to restrain the defendant from selling or removing, and to compel him to give a bond for the forthcoming of the property to abide the final order of the court. So, in a bill for an injunction to prevent slaves from being taken out of the State, an allegation that the defendant is about to sell his perishable property, and that it is rumored he is about to remove, and that the plaintiff believes, if he does so, he will carry off the slaves, which he holds for life only; is sufficient ground for an injunction, and, not being met by the answer, though it denies the intention of removing, the injunction will be continued."

§ 11. Where a debtor, pending a suit against him, removed with his property (slaves) from the State; and after recovery of judgment, and after the plaintiff's execution had lost its active energy, the slaves were brought back, it was held that he could sustain a bill to prevent their removal until he could revive his execution.1

§ 12. When a party is surety on a bond given by a deputysheriff to his principal, and has taken a mortgage on personal property for his indemnity, and the sheriff and the deputy have collected money for which the sheriff is sued, and the deputy has departed the jurisdiction, and a third person has got possession of the mortgage property on a pretended claim of right, and is charged with intending to remove it beyond the jurisdiction of the courts; equity will restrain him by injunction, and require bond and security for its forthcoming, to respond to the mortgage.2

13. The effect of a temporary injunction, granted under the New York Code, § 219, is not to restrain any removal or disposition of the property of the debtor, but only a removal or disposition with intent to defraud creditors.3

14. Under the head of removal may be noticed the unlawful transfer of stock, which is often mentioned as a proper subject of injunction. Thus an injunction was granted until answer, against the transfer of stock, standing in the name of the defendant, a steward of the plaintiff, upon affidavits, tending strongly to show that the stock was the produce of the plaintiff's property, consisting of rents and profits received for many years without account. But the injunction was refused in reference to money standing in the name of the defendant at his banker's, the last payment having been made two years before, and the law not justifying a presumption that the money remained the same. Lord Eldon

1 Abrahams v. Cole, 5 Rich. Eq.

2 Outlaw v. Reddick, 11 Geo. 669.

3 Brewster v. Hodges, 1 Duer, 609.

spoke of the case as one of "astonishing improvidence in the plaintiff, not demanding any account, but taking such sums as the defendant pleases to feed his occasions with." His Lordship further remarks: "The question then is, whether, if this stock and money are by his wrongful act confounded with his own, there is not a fair ground to say, that he having mixed them shall not be permitted to dispose of them until he shall have satisfactorily distinguished by an answer put in here that, which in conscience he never ought to have mixed. I do less mischief by fixing the injunction. upon the whole till he informs me what is his master's, than by not fixing the injunction upon any part, giving him an opportunity of doing the enormous injustice, of which from these affidavits he appears capable."

1 Lord Chedworth v. Edwards, 8 Ves. 46, 48, 50.

CHAPTER XIV.

TITLE AND EVICTION.

§ 1. AN injunction will not lie, to restrain a party in possession who claims title, and who expressly denies all title on the part of the complainant, either legal or equitable. Where title is in dispute, a temporary injunction. is sometimes granted to preserve it until answer filed; but this is never done (in Maryland) unless the damage complained of is intolerable, and the mischief irreparable, or. where the trespass goes to the destruction of the thing. Even where irreparable damage is apprehended, an averment to that effect is not sufficient; the facts must be stated, to show that the apprehension is well founded. The proper course, when an injunction is applied for, and the legal title is doubtful, is to send the complainant to a court of law, to have his title first established.' Lord Eldon remarked: "I remember when, if a plaintiff stated, that the defendant claimed by an adverse title, he stated himself out of court." And, in a case relating to a mill, the Lord Chancellor said: "In this case it has been put upon this ground, that it is within the equity of this court to take ex ab origine a question whether or not a right is violated. It struck me immediately, from a general recollection of the cases, that the court has exercised no such jurisdiction. There are two ways in which applications to this court have been made in this kind of case: first, in order to compel the party to try the rightsecondly, to prevent a multiplicity of suits."3 But although equity has no authority, in general, to try questions of title

'Chesapeake, &c. v. Young, 3 Md. 480.

2 Per Lord Eldon, Smith v. Collyer, 8 Ves. 90.

3 Weller v. Smeaton, 1 Cox, 103.

to lands, it is otherwise where the whole dispute is on the construction of a will or other written instrument, under which both parties claim. So equity may interfere by injunction in favor of one who owns and has possession of the land, but upon whose title a cloud rests in consequence of an adverse claim.2

§ 2. Equity may restrain by injunction a citizen of the State from injuring real estate out of the State.3 So where a non-resident vendor of land is unable to make title, an averment, in a bill filed by the vendee, that the vendor is in very "slender circumstances," and unable to respond in damages on her covenant of warranty, is sufficient to authorize the vendee to come into equity, to enjoin the collection of the purchase-money.*

§ 3. It is a general rule, that a party seeking an injunc tion, to protect him in the enjoyment of real property, must show a right, such as the court, upon his own showing, will feel bound to protect against the defendant. In respect to applications for injunctions to stay waste, such rule is strict. But where the gravamen of the case is an alleged fraudulent purchase by the defendant of the complainant, if the latter states his right so as to authorize him to complain of the fraud, and to entitle him to relief against it, this is sufficient."

§ 4. A vendee, who has not acquired the legal title, cannot sustain a bill of peace. Thus equity will not enjoin an action of ejectment brought against a purchaser of real estate at a guardian's sale, the sale not having been reported to or approved by the Circuit Court, though he paid for the land, supposing his title perfect. Nor, at the instance of a party claiming the legal title to land, a sale of the land by an ad

327.

Gibbes v. Elliott, 5 Rich. Eq.

2 Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Verm. 484. 3 Great Falls, &c. v. Worster, 3 Fost. 462.

4 Graham v. Tankersley, 15 Ala. 634.

5 Outcalt v. Disborough, 2 Green Ch. 214.

Young v. Dowling, 15 Ill. 481.