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

and when the case stood in the same situation as at the former
argument, my attention has again been called to the subject, and
the cause elaborately argued, relying on the part of the defend-
ants, that the injunction ought not to have issued without bond
and security; and that it should be dissolved, unless such bond
should be given by a prescribed day.

On the part of the complainants it was insisted, that, supposing
a bond to have been necessary, yet as the injunction was obtained
without one, that the irregularity of issuing it was waived by the
answer. I have again considered the case and see no reason to
retract from the opinion pronounced on the former occasion; nor
can I discover any error in granting the injunction without bond;
if, in any case a bond should be dispensed with, this is one; and
the decisions of my predecessors in office fully warranted the issu-
ing of this injunction. The time, the manner, the effect, and the
immediate ruinous consequences from the hasty and unwarranted
judgment demanded the immediate interposition of this Court;
and, unless compelled to demand an injunction bond, it should be
dispensed with.

In the case of Hampsen v. Edelin, 2 H. & J. 64. no bond was
given to prosecute the injunction that issued. In that case, an
execution was laid on a piece of land, that the complainant had
purchased and obtained a bond for the conveyance of, prior to the
rendition of the judgment. Also in the case oi Stewart v. Yates,
(h) an injunction issued, without bond, to prevent land from being

(h) STEWAET v. YATES.—This bill was filed, on the 22d of October, 1817, by
William Stewart against John Yates, Thomas Armatt, William Brogden,
Lewis Duvall, John N. Watkins, and the President, Directors and Company
of the Farmers Bank of Maryland. The bill states, that some time previous
to the 23d of March, 1797, a purchase was made of Alien Quynn by Joseph
Watkins, of a tract of land which was conveyed to him accordingly, with
an agreement, that Watkins should afterwards convey to the plaintiff a
certain portion of it containing about sixty-three acres, which had been
previously set apart for him; and which he paid for shortly thereafter; that
a deed for the same was soon after prepared, but not executed by Watkins,
owing to his negligence, until the 5th of March, 1812; although the plaintiff
had, many years before, paid the purchase money; and had, at that time,
been in actual possession of the land fourteen or fifteen years. That about
the month of February, 1804, the plaintiff purchased of Watkins ninety
acres more of the same tract of land, and also a small parcel of another
tract, for which the plaintiff agreed to pay five hundred pounds; the whole
of which had been long since paid; but for which land he had not obtained
a deed until the 5th of March, 1812, although he had possession thereof,
under the contract, seven or eight years. That after the plaintiff had pur-
chased the last parcel of said land, received the possession and paid the pur-
chase money, two several judgments were recovered by the defendant Yates
for the use of the defendant Armatt against the said Joseph Watkins; which
judgments appear to have been assigned to the defendant Duvall, by him to
the defendant John N. Watkins, and by him to the defendant the bank.