400 CHANCERY. [ART. 16

1888, art. 16, sec. 66. 1860, art. 16, sec. 54. 1793, ch. 75, sec. 3.

77. Whenever an application shall be made by an executor
or administrator for an injunction to stay proceedings at law,
the court may, in its discretion, prescribe the penalty of a
bond, which shall be executed to the plaintiff at law, with
security approved by the court, before the injunction shall be
granted, and the condition of such bond shall be to perform
such order or decree as the court shall finally pass in the
cause on the hearing of both parties; and whenever an injunc-
tion is obtained by an executor or administrator, on filing a
bill and executing a bond as aforesaid, the court shall have
full power and discretion to decree against such executor or
administrator, as equity and good conscience shall seem to
require.

Ibid. sec. 67. 1860, art. 16, sec. 55. 1799, ch. 79, sec. 10.

78. In all cases where a sheriff, or other officer, is prevented
by an injunction from selling personal property taken in execu-
tion, he shall deliver back the property taken in execution to
the party from whom it was taken, and shall not be answerable
to the plaintiff at law on account of the same.

Slusser v. Chapline, 4 H. & McH. 222 Cape Sable Co. 's Case, 3 Bl. 637.
Dail v. Traverse, 8 Gill, 43.

Ibid. sec. 68. 1835, ch. 380, sec. 8 1861, ch. 32. 1872, ch. 157.

79. In all cases pending on motion to grant an injunction,
motion to dissolve on injunction, motion to appoint a receiver,
or motion to rescind an order appointing a receiver, the court
may, at the instance of either party, order testimony to be
taken before such person, and upon such notice and in such
manner as the court in its discretion may direct, to be used at
the hearing of such motion. *

Inadvertently omitted from the Code of 1860, but restored by 1861, ch. 32.

Lamborn v. Covington Co., 2 Md. Ch 412. Hamilton v Whitridge, 11
Md. 128. Keighler v. Savage Mnfg. Co, 12 Md., 413 Bouldin v. Mayor &
C. C., 15 Md. 18. Bell v Purvis, 15 Md. 22. Steigerwald v Winans, 17 Md.
62. Colvin v. Warford, 18 Md. 275. Griffith v. Clarke, 18 Md. 457. Belt v.
Blackburn, 28 Md 227. Mayor & C C. v. Warren Manfg. Co. 59 Md 96.

Ibid. sec. 69. 1888, ch 260.

80. No court shall refuse to issue a mandamus or injunction
on the mere ground that the party asking for the same has an
adequate remedy in damages, unless the party against whom
the same is asked shall show to the court's satisfaction that he
has property from which the damages can be made, or shall