588 CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.—3 BLAND.

No bond is required in certain cases on the granting of an injunction to stay

execution at law.
Where there are two or more defendants the injunction will not, in general,

be dissolved on motion until all of them have answered, (c)
Where a claim, in a creditor's suit, has been put in issue and established

between the proper parties, it cannot be called in question by any other
creditor who may come in thereafter, (d)
The nature of poundage fees allowed to the sheriff on an execution; the

mode in which they may be recovered: and the grounds upon which the

sheriff may obtain relief in equity, (e)
Where by a decree, passed with consent, real and personal property upon

which an execution had been levied, is taken from the sheriff and sold,

without discrimination, his poundage fees will be allowed for the whole

debt, first on the whole appraised value of the personalty, and for the

residue on the realty.
Where the lieu of a judgment has expired, by lapse of time, it cannot be

revived so as to overreach a lien which has attached during the time of

such lapse. (f)
The lien of a judgment upon land being an incident of its liability to be taken

in execution under such judgment, there can be no lien where there is

no direct or indirect mode of having an execution, founded on such

judgment, levied upon such land, (g)
But now and here, the judgments and decrees of the County Courts, the

Court of Chancery, and the Court of Appeals, give a lien upon the lands

of the defendant every where within the State.
A citizen can only be sued or arrested by civil process in the county in which

he resides; but may be taken by an attachment from the High Court of

Chancery any where within the State.

THIS bill was tiled on the 4th of January, 1823, by Addison-
Ridout, Joseph Jubere, John J. Gibson, Ann O. Gibson, John L.
Tilghman and Maria E. his wife, and Horatio Gibson, against the
Cape Sable Company, Richard Caton, Robert Oliver and John
Oliver. This bill sets forth, that these plaintiffs had, on the sixth
of August, 1822, filed a bill in this Court against these *de-
607 * fendants, the Cape Sable Company and Richard Caton, and
also against Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Alexander Mitchell and
William McMechen, for the purpose of obtaining payment of cer-
tain large sums of money, &c.; that by an Act passed on the 18th
of February, 1819, Richard Caton, John Gibson and others, con-
stituting the association under the deed of the 21st of June, 1813,
were incorporated by the name of the Cape Sable Company: 1818,

(c) See Salmon v. Clagett, ante, 125, note.

(d) Affirmed in Trayhern v. Mechanics Bank, 57 Md. 598. See Hammond v.
Hammond, 2 Bland, 306, note.

(e} Cited in Gilmor v. Brian, 1 Md. Ch. 43. See Fisher v. Beatty, 3 H. &
McH. 148.

(f) But see Hodges v. Sevier, 4 Md. Ch. 384.

(g) But see Hayden v. Stewart, 1 Md. Ch. 463, 464, where the case in the
text is examined.