134 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

said land and personal property is now in the possession and occu-
pation of the said Elizabeth Clagett and Edmund Clagett."

of a bank, acting in their proper sphere to protect their interests by suit or
otherwise, will not be interfered with. Ibid.

On a bill by a coal company against a railroad company for an injunction
to prohibit the latter from demanding higher rates for carrying coal than
were fixed by the Act of Assembly, where it appeared that complainant,
with its tram road connecting with the railroad of defendant, depended
entirely upon the latter for the transportation of its coal to market and was
specially damaged by the exaction of excessive freights, it was held that
complainant was entitled to an injunction. Am. Coal Co. v. Consol. Coal Co.
46 Md. 16.

The fact of the selling of the franchise of a mining company by the cor-
porators, before any of the stock was subscribed for. by means of which
alone corporate rights could be transferred, forms no ground for an injunc-
tion against the corporation to stay it in the exercise of its franchises. New
Central Co. v. Georges Creek Co. 37 Bid. 539. Where complainants had failed
to comply with the terms of their subscription to the stock of a company,
without any default on the part of the company, they have no such interest
as entitles them to apply for an injunction and receiver. Busey v. Hooper,
35 Md. 15.

Where the N. C. Railway executed a mortgage to the State of its entire
road, with all the tolls and revenues, to secure the payment of an annuity
of $90.000, and under this mortgage the State stood as second and third in-
cumbrancer, it was held, that upon its being shown that the company, in
violation of its duty, was applying its revenues, the only means of paying
the annuity, to the payment of junior incumbrances, equity ought to inter-
fere, to the extent of its jurisdiction, by injunction and the appointment of
a, receiver. State v. Railway Co. 18 Md. 193,

If the trustees of a church have intruded upon the office of the minister
or steward of the church, it is no ground for an injunction at the instance
of the male members of the congregation, but the remedy is by mandamus
at the relation of the officer disturbed or ousted. Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md.
823. Cf. Gilbert v. Arnold, 30 Md. 37; Runltel v. Winemitter, 4 H. & McH. 429.

Injunction to prevent the reorganization of the W. U. Tel. Co. refused.
Sprigg v. Tel. Co. 46 Md. 67. Application hy a stockholder and creditor of a
corporation to prevent the use of a certain method of settling its affairs as
being in violation of the charter, rejected, because complainant had assented.
Md. Sav. Inst'n v. Schroeder, 8 G. & J. 93. Bill to restrain sale of a railroad
under the power contained in a deed of trust executed by the road to secure
payment of certain bonds. Brown v. State, 62 Md. 489.

XII. INJUNCTIONS IN PARTNERSHIP MATTERS. See Williamson v. Wilson,
1 Bland. 418, and in addition to cases there cited, Reader v. Machen, 57 Md.
56; Bennett v. Rhodes, 58 Md. 78; Bush v. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344. Bill for
an injunction and account by one partner against another. Abrahams v.
Myers, 40 Md. 499.

XIII. INJUNCTIONS TO PROTECT TRADE-MARKS. Trade-marks are property,
and a person using such marks without the authority of the owner will be
restrained by injunction, even where it does not appear that there was any
fraudulent intent in their use, and will be required to account for the profits
derived from the sale of the goods so marked. Stonebraker v. Stonebraker.