CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH. 15

on him by the sheriff of Anne Arundel county, in the city of
Annapolis; and the defendant denies that he intended any con-
tempt, &c.

10th July, 1816.—KILTY, Chancellor.—This petition was argued
by counsel 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 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 attachment,
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
Crapster, filed another original bill against this defendant Lyde
Griffith; in which he refers to and invokes the proceedings of the
former suit into this; and then states, that the defendant had
retained and received the profits of the negroes allotted to this
plaintiff until the last day of November, 1816; that the commis-
sion, in the former case, under which proof had been taken ascer-
taining the sex and age of all the negroes in the possession of the
defendant, which were of the estate of the late Vachel Dorsey, was
closed on the 8th of September, 1810; since which time, and be-
fore the decree of the 12th of February, 1814, Lucy, one of the
negroes decreed to the plaintiff, had had two children, the one
named Alfred, and the other named Cuffee; and that Milly,
another of the negroes decreed to the plaintiff, had also had a
child in the same interval of time, named Eliza; which three
negro children the defendant refused to deliver, and claimed as his

own. That Harriet, the wife of this plaintiff, had joined him in a