120 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

delivered the property or paid any money accordingly to either of
the representatives of her intestate; but together with the defend-

contribution, unless he tenders the principal and intercut due such co-surety,
who had paid the principal debtor; or allege that he was ready and willing
to bring the same into Court to be paid him, as a condition of Court's in-
terference. Craig v, Ankeney, 4 Gill, 325. Cf. Flickinger v. Hull, 5 Gill, 60.

An injunction will be granted to stay a suit at law upon an award upon
the ground of fraud, misconduct, partiality, or mistake of the arbitrators.
Sisk v. Garey, 27 Md. 402. Where certain matters were submitted to arbi-
tration, and the parties appeared before the arbitrators and each filed a state-
ment setting forth his claims against the other, and after the hearing was
closed, the arbitrators received a statement from one of the parties, contain-
ing different items of claim from any presented at the hearing, and without
the knowledge of other party, a suit at law upon the award was enjoined.
Ibid.

On a bill of interpleader, the complainant was ordered to bring the money
into Court, the defendants to interplead and answer, and their proceedings
at law against complainant enjoined. Barth v. Rosenfeld. 86 Md. 609. In-
junction granted to stay proceedings for a patent before the commissioner of
the land office. Goodsell v. Lawson, 43 Md. 348. Injunction to restrain
action on a recognizance in bastardy, on the ground that the pretended re-
cognizance was not a true record, refused. Huyett v. Slick, 43 Md. 284. A
writ of mandamus cannot be stayed by injunction. Weber v. Zimmerman.
23 Md. 45.

Where a female infant gave a bond of conveyance, with security, condi-
tioned for the conveyance of certain land after she came of age. and the
vendee paid the purchase money and went into possession, but the infant,
after coming of age. refused to ratify the sale, execute a deed, or repay the
purchase money, but brought ejectment in the name of herself and husband,
it was held, that she was not liable to be restrained by injunction. Brainier
v. Franklin. 4 Gill. 463. In Bowen v. Gent. 34 Md. 555. an injunction to stay
an ejectment was refused, because the bill did not show any grounds of de-
fence to the action which could not be availed of at law. In Worthington v.
Lee, 61 Md. 580, an ejectment was enjoined, under the special circumstances
of that case.

In the case of an unexecuted contract for the sale of real estate, the
vendee is entitled to have that for -which he contracts before he can be com-
pelled to pay. and if the vendor has no title at the time he agreed to convey,
equity will restrain him from proceeding at law upon the vendee's bond for
the purchase money. Dorsey v. Hobbs, 10 Md. 412. Cf Middekauf v. Bar-
nek. 4 Gill. 291. The mere claim of paramount title by a third person, not
alleged in the bill to be valid, and bringing suit upon that claim against the
purchaser, are not sufficient to authorize equity to restrain the vendor, who
has warranted the title, from proceeding to collect the unpaid purchase
money. Gayle v. Fattle, 14 Md. 69.

Where proceedings at law have been restrained upon the ground of credits
not allowed, and the defendant admits the credits in his answer and con-
sents to allow them, the injunction should be dissolved as to the balance
due. Welch v Parran. 2 Gill. 320. Cf. Reynolds v. Howard, 3 Md. Ch. 331.

No injunction can be granted to stay proceeding at law between the same
parties without bond and surety by the plaintiff in equity to the plaintiff at
law, to prosecute the suit in equity with effect. Walsh v. Smyth, 3 Bland,
1; Cape Sable Co's Case, Ibid, 606: Reynolds v. Howard 3 Md. Ch. 331. Cf.