146 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

1828 And between the first of April and the ninth of May of the
same year, Salmon lent to Thomas Clagett a large amount of
money, and in addition to all this, Salmon lent his notes, the one
of the 12th of March, and the other of the 19th of Apul, 1828,
payable at three months after date, to Thomas Clagett; which

has been filed and approved according to law Gelston v Sigmund, 27 Md
345, Glenn v Davis 35 Md 209

An appeal lies, under Rev Code, Art 71, sec 45 from a refusal to grant
an injunction to the extent prayed for by the bill Willis v Jones 57 Md
365 An appeal lies from order dissolving the injunction and dismissing the
bill Dance v Dance, 56 Md. 436 And from an order refusing to dissolve
Reeder v. Machen 57 Md 60 And from an older overruling a demurrer to
the bill Chappell v Funk, 57 Md 46o

No appeal lies from an order requiring the defendant to answer by a cer
tain day, such order not being final in its nature Dennison v Wants 61
Md 143 Nor from an order granting leave to complainant to amend Hill
v Reifsnider 39 Md 429 See ante as to amendments. An application to
the Chancellor to appoint an early day for the hearing of a motion to dis
solve is in his discretion and is not the subject of appeal Owings v Worth
ington, 10 G & J 283

Where a cause was set down for hearing on motion to dissolve and after
wards a commission issued by agreement under which testimony was taken
and returned the cause being then set down for final heariug, and an order
passed continuing the injunction and reserving other questions for further
consideration, it was held that an appeal lies from this order Griffith v
Clarke 18 Md 457

An appeal lies from any final decree or order in the nature of a final de
cree Rev Code, Art 71 sec 39 Snowden v Dorsey 6 H & J 114 note (a)

XXIV BONDS AND DAMAGES See Rev Code Art 57 sec 20 An
action cannot be maintained on an injunction bond until after the final ter
mination of the suit in which it was issued Gray v Veirs 33 Md 159
The State is the legal plaintiff in the suit on the bond, and upon a judgment
entered to the use of others but one recovery can be had Hopkins v State,
53 Md 502 It was held under the circumstances of this case that there was
no insufficiency of the injunction bond nor of the writ, nor variance be
tween the bond and the writ and between the narr and the bond, and that
a recovery could be had on the bond

Where an injunction bond sued on recites the pendency of the proceed
ings in which the injunction was ordered as also the fact that it had been
issued, and was in force at the time the bond was given, the defendants are
estopped from denying these facts Le Strange v State, 58 Md 26 On
objection being made at the trial to the introduction of the equity proceed
ings in evidence, it was held, that the proceedings were competent evidence
to show upon what allegations of fact the injunction was granted and in re
spect to what subject matter it was intended to operate Ibid Only those
having an interest in the subject matter of the bond and for whose benefit
it was taken can put it in suit and the name's of such parties must appear in
assigning the breach, and the right and interest in respect of which they
sue Ibid

The injunction bond is liable for the damages that may accrue to the de
fendant by reason of the delay and obstruction of his rights pending an
appeal, and the appeal bond is only cumulative security to the injunction