ART. 5.] APPEALS PROM COURTS OF EQUITY. 25

ard v. Waters, 19 Md 599. Bouldin v. Bank of Commerce, 21 Md 44. Vick-
ers v. Gray, 22 Md 196. Henry v. Kauffman, 24 Md 1. Phillips v. Pearson,
27 Md. 242. Hazlehurst v. Morris, 28 Md. 67. Chenowith v. Smith, 29 Md.
18. Frisby v. Parkurst, 29 Md. 59. Wylie v. Johnstone, 29 Md 298. John-
son v. Robertson, 31 Md 476 Hall v. Jack, 32 Md. 253. Hunting v. Walter,

33 Md. 60. Calvert v. Williams, 34 Md. 672. Ashton v. Ashton, 35 Md 496.
Powhatan Steamboat Co v. Potomac Steamboat Co , 36 Md. 238. Hill v.
Reifsnider, 39 Md 429 Barton v. Higgins, 41 Md 539. Dillon v. Conn.
Mutual Life Ins. Co , 44 Md. 386. Equitable Mutual Land Imp. Asso, v.
Becker, 45 Md 632. Smith v. Shaffer, 50 Md. 132. Pfeaff v. Jones, 50 Md.

263. Gebhart v. Merfeld, 51 Md. 392. Washington City and Pt. Lookout R.
R. Co. v. Southern Md. R. R. Co., 55 Md. 163. Gustav Adolph Build. Asso. v.
Kratz, 55 Md 394. Chappell v. Funk, 57 Md. 465. Hecht v. Colquhoun, 57
Md. 563. Frey v. Shrewsbury Savs. Ins, 58 Md 151. Schwartz v. Chickering,
58 Md. 290. Simms v. Lloyd, 58 Md. 477 Brown v. B. W. & B. R. R. Co., 58
Md. 539. Gable v. Williams, 59 Md. 46 Mackey v. Daniel, 59 Md. 484.
Brune v. Lanahan, 60 Md. 515. McDonald v. The Workingmen's Building
Asso., 60 Md 589. Schluderberg v. Robertson, 60 Md. 602. Dennison v.
Wantz, 61 Md. 143. Tome v. Hambleton, 64 Md. 166. State v. Brown, 64
Md. 199. Sumner v. Miller, 64 Md 296. Isaac v. Emory, 64 Md. 333. Frey

v. Devries, 64 Md. 532. Hull v. Caughy, 66 Md. 105.

P. G. L., (1860,) art. 5, sec. 21. 1835, ch. 346, sec. 2. 1835, ch. 380, sec 3.
1841, ch. H. 1845, ch. 367, sec 1. 1865, ch. 141.

25. An appeal may also be allowed in the following cases, to
wit: From any order granting an injunction, or from a refusal
to dissolve the same, or an order appointing a receiver, the
answer of the party appealing being first filed in the cause; from
an order dissolving an injunction; from an order for the sale,

conveyance, or delivery of real or personal property, or the pay-
ment of money, unless such delivery or payment be directed to
be made to a receiver appointed by such court; or from an
order determining a question of right between the parties, and
directing an account to be stated on the principle of such deter-
mination.

Snowden v. Dorsey, 6 H & J 114. Dorsey v. Smith, 2 H & G 135. Hag-
thorp v. Hook, 1 G. & J. 270. Roberts v. Salisbury, 3 G & J 425 Hunger-
ford v. Bourne, 3 G. & J. 133. Richardson v. Jones, 3 G & J. 163. Marshall

v. Mayor, &c , 8 G. & J 214. Richter v. Pue, 9 G. & J 475. Hatton v.
Weems, 10 G. & J. 377 Clagett v. Crawford, 12 G. & J 275. Darnngton v.
Rogers, 1 Gill, 403 Wheeler v. Stone, 4 Gill, 38 Brawner v. Franklin, 4
Gill, 463. Geiger v. Green, 4 Gill, 472. Goodburn v. Stevens, 5 Gill, 20.
White B White, 5 Gill, 359 Kerr v. Potter, 6 Gill, 422. Wagner v. Cohen, v.

6 Gill, 97 Barnes v. Dodge, 7 Gill, 109. Ellicott v. Warford, 3 Md. Ch
Dec. 300. Smallwood v. Hatton, 4 Md Ch Dec 95 Young v. Frost, 1 Md
394 Furlong v. Edwards, 3 Md 99. Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md 507. Elli-