12 CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH.—2 BLAND.

entitled, which they promised to deliver up; and they also admitted
that the defendant was entitled to credits which had not been
given to him; that the defendant attended for some hours on the
day, and at the place appointed, and the plaintiff not appearing,
he went home, soon after which the plaintiff came to the defend-
ant's house, having the negro girl, mentioned in the decree, with
him, for the purpose, as he said, of delivering her up; and soon
after they went upon the land in the possession of Thomas Henry,
a tenant of the plaintiff's, when the plaintiff pulled down a part
of the fence, rode into the field, and desired the defendant to take
possession of the land, if he knew where it was, observing, that a
part of it was in that field, and another part in woods; that the
plaintiff did not pretend to deliver possession of any particular
part, or to turn his tenant out of possession, who then persisted in
holding possession until the expiration of his lease in November
following; the plaintiff soon after went off, taking with him the
negro girl; that the plaintiff had been enjoined by this Court not
to dispute the possession of his tenant. That the defendant is a
citizen of, and resides in Montgomery County, which has been the
place of his residence for several years; and the attachment was
served * on him by the sheriff of Anne Arundel County, in
15 the City of Annapolis; and the defendant denies that he
intended any contempt, &c.

KILTY, C., 10th July, 1816.—This petition was argued by coun-
sel on each side. Those parts of the answer, respecting further
credit, could not have any influence on the question, and were not
relied on in the argument. But it appears, that Crapster had not
such a possession of the land as to enable him to make a valid
tender of it, under the decree; and, supposing, as contended, that
Griffith was unwilling to comply with the decree, he ought not to
be compelled so to do, without receiving what he is entitled to,
which he might otherwise have to seek for after a compliance on
his part. The objection as to the manner of offering the posses-
sion, would not be material, if Crapster held the land; because
Griffith must have known where it lay.

As to the objection on the ground of residence, it appears, that
by the practice in England, a person found in London may be
attached there, though residing in a different county. I do not
know, that a case of the kind has ever before occurred here; but
it is not material in the present case, as, for the reasons above
stated, the respondent Lyde Griffith, is discharged from the attach-
ment, leaving the decree to be proceeded on hereafter, so as to have
it finally executed.

After which, on the 31st of May, 1817, this plaintiff, Basil Craps-
ter, filed another original bill against the defendant Lyde Griffith;