SALMON v. CLAGETT—3 BLAND. 119

surplus to the amount of $2,753.13; and although a distribution
had been ordered by the Orphans' Court, yet she had not actually

for the purpose of evading a law of this State prohibiting the laying of
attachments in such cases. The effect of an order of a Court of a foreign
jurisdiction, forbidding the maintaining of an action against a certain party,
should be raised by a plea, or in some other mode than by an application for
a continuance. Inn. Co. v. Bach/is, 51 Md. 28, Non-residents cannot be re-
strained, by an injunction from a State Court, from suing in a Court of the
United States. Their right so to sue must be determined by the U. S.
Court. Worthington v. Lee. 61 Md. 543.

If a party elects to proceed at law, his bill will be dismissed, and if he
elects to proceed in equity, he will be restrained from further prosecuting
his suit at law. without the leave of the Court. Union Bank v. Kerr, 2 Md.
Ch. 460. Equity sometimes prohibits proceedings at law upon the ground
that having possessed itself of the general subject by an application for its
aid to compel a disclosure, or for the exercise of some other admitted juris-
diction, it will dispose of the whole matter, and thus avoid a multiplicity of
suits. Glenn v. Fowler, 8 G. & J. 341,

If the defendant at law has a good defence at law. and the remedy there
is as perfect and complete as in equity, the action will not be enjoined.
R. R. Co. v. R. R. Co., C.7 Md. 272. Equity will not restrain proceedings at
law on account of the rule of damages which there prevails, and in order to
set up a rule of its own. Atlantic Coal Co. v. Md. Coal Co., C2 Md. 143.
Where an assignment for the benefit of creditors was made, which was void
because fraudulent, and the debtor having applied under the Insolvent Law
after the execution of the deed, and the proceeds of the property conveyed
as aforesaid were condemned by judgments in attachments on original pro-
cess laid in the grantee's hands before the appointment of the trustee in in-
solvency, an injunction was granted, on the application of the trustee in
insolvency, to restrain further proceedings on the judgments and in the
pending attachments. Lynch v. Roberts, 57 Md. 130. As to when an injunc-
tion will be granted to stay the proceedings of attaching creditors, pending
litigation as to the validity of a deed of trust, see Laupenheimer v. Rosen-
baum, 25 Md. 220.

When, in a creditor's suit, the Court has assumed administration of the
assets, it will generally enjoin the further progress of suits by other credi-
tors. Hammond v. Hammond, 3 Bland. 360-363; Boyd v. Harris. 1 Md. Ch.
466. From the date of a decree to account upon a creditor's bill against an
administrator or executor, and on a due disclosure of assets, an injunction
will be granted on the motion of either party to stay all proceedings at law
of the creditors. Brooks v. Dent, 4 Md. Ch. 473. But a creditor will not be
restrained from prosecuting his legal remedy against the personal represen-
tatives of his debtor, unless there is a decree under which the creditor has
a present right to go in and prove his debt. Ellicott v. Ins. Co. 7 Gill, 319.
Where a party was surety for another, who gave a chattel mortgage to the
creditor to secure the debt, the surety is not entitled to an injunction against
attachment proceedings by the creditor against him. on the ground that the
creditor permitted the debtor to dispose of the property covered by the mort-
gage after default. Freaner v. Yingling, 37 Md. 491. Cf. Banks v. State, 62
Md. 88. A suit by a creditor against a surety will not be restrained on the
ground of the discontinuance of a prior suit by the creditor against the
principal debtor. Somerville v. Marbury. 7 G. & J. 276. One surety cannot
by injunction arrest the proceedings at law of his co-surety against him. for