|
358 LAWS OF MARYLAND [Ch. 2
(3) REFUSING TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION; AND THE
RIGHT OF APPEAL IS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE FILING OF AN
ANSWER TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT OR PETITION FOR AN
INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF ANY OPPOSING PARTY, NOR BY THE
TAKING OF DEPOSITIONS IN REFERENCE TO THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT TO BE READ ON THE HEARING OF
THE APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION.
(4) APPOINTING A RECEIVER BUT ONLY IF THE
APPELLANT HAS FIRST FILED HIS ANSWER IN THE CAUSE.
(5) FOR THE SALE, CONVEYANCE, OR DELIVERY OF
REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY, OR
THE REFUSAL TO RESCIND OR DISCHARGE SUCH AN ORDER,
UNLESS THE DELIVERY OR PAYMENT IS DIRECTED TO BE MADE
TO A RECEIVER APPOINTED BY THE COURT.
(6) DETERMINING A QUESTION OF RIGHT BETWEEN
THE PARTIES AND DIRECTING AN ACCOUNT TO BE STATED ON
THE PRINCIPLE OF SUCH DETERMINATION.
(7) REQUIRING BOND FROM A PERSON TO WHOM THE
DISTRIBUTION OR DELIVERY OF PROPERTY IS DIRECTED, OR
WITHHOLDING DISTRIBUTION OR DELIVERY AND ORDERING THE
RETENTION OR ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY BY THE FIDUCIARY
OR ITS TRANSFER TO A TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER, OR DEFERRING
THE PASSAGE OF THE COURT'S DECREE IN AN ACTION UNDER
MARYLAND RULE V79.
(8) DECIDING ANY QUESTION IN AN INSOLVENCY
PROCEEDING BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 47 OF THE CODE.
(9) GRANTING AN APPLICATION TO STAY
ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO §3-207 OF THIS ARTICLE.
REVISOR'S NOTE: Subsection (c) takes the
provisions of Art. 5, §§7 and 8A and combines
them. Although most of the actions mentioned
are in equity, some relief, like an
injunction, may also be obtained at law;
hence no distinction is made between law and
equity. It may be noted that in Jackson v.
Jackson, 15 Md. App. 615, 292 A. 2d. 145,
Acts of 1972, the Court of Special Appeals
indicated that a refusal to quash a writ of
ne exeat was similar to the refusal to quash
an injunction, and thus appealable by analogy
to Art. 5, §7, even though the order is
interlocutory.
In addition, paragraph (9) picks up a
|
