122 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

benefit of themselves, and his other legal representatives. That
in the summer of 1827, the defendant Thomas Clagett, commenced

attention to the case, G. co.uld not have avoided it. Held, that G. was not
entitled to relief in equity; that if he were entitled to have additional credits
entered on the judgment, he had his remedy by motion in the Court where
the judgment was recovered for a rule upon T. to show cause why such
credits should not be allowed, and upon such rule the execution might be
stayed till the facts were ascertained. Gorsuch v. Thomas, 57 Md. 334.

In a case where equity has power to order the delivery up and cancella-
tion of judgments, there can be no question as to itb power to perpetually
enjoin their execution. Wagner v. Shank, 59 Md. 314. Where a justice
enters a judgment of condemnation without being legally authorized to do
so. and also by mistake, the attachment debtor is entitled to an injunction
restraining the execution of the judgment of condemnation. Weikel v.
Cafe. 58 Md. 105. The prayer of the bill was that complainant might be per-
mitted to bring into Court the amount due by him upon a judgment against
him in favor of S. amounting to $150 and interest, (it being the judgment
debt attached in his hands, i to abide the result of the suit: and that S. might
be enjoined from executing his judgment against the complainant; and that
W,. the attaching creditor, might be restrained from executing his judgment
for more than the sum of $119.40. The injunction restrained W. from exe-
cuting his judgment against complainant for any amount whatever. Held,
that the bill was not for an injunction merely, but was in the nature of a
bill of interpleader. That all the parties were before the Court, and inas-
much as the justice had no power to issue the attachment, and the judg-
ment of condemnation having been entered by mistake and contrary to the
agreement of the parties, the Court properly enjoined W. from ibsuing an
execution for any amount, Ibid.

No equity arises if the facts were known at the trial. and the grievance
complained of has been caused, either by a mistake in pleading or other mis-
management, or by a supposed error in the judgment of the Court. R. R.
v. R. R . 57 Md. 272.

Application for an injunction by the alienee of a judgment debtor to re-
strain the judgment creditor from proceeding on his judgment againbt the
land aliened, refused. Welde v. Scottan, 59 Md. 72. As to when a married
woman may enjoin an execution issued against her husband and levied upon
property claimed to be hers, see Erdman v. Rosenthal. 00 Md. 312: Frazier v.
White, 49 Md. 1; McCann v. Taylor. 10 Md. 418.

When the property of A. is taken in execution under judgments against
B., and the officer making the levy is able to meet the responsibility, the
remedy at law is adequate, and equity has no jurisdiction. Chappell v.
Cox. 18 Md. 513. A party claiming a stock of goods in a shop by bill of sale
from one partner of the firm, permitted the other party to continue the busi-
ness and buy other goods and bring them into the shop. Executions on
judgments against such continuing partner were siibsequently levied on
goods in the store. Held, that if, by permission of the party claiming under
the bill of sale, his property became so intermingled with that of the de-
fendant in the judgments as to prevent separation and identification, and
he failed to point out his goods to the officer, equity will not aid him. Ibid.
Cf. Kreuzer v. Cooney, 45 Md, 583. A bill to restrain an execution levied upon
goods in a store, claimed by complainant under title from the party against
whom execution issued, not showing that the property was of such a charac-
ter, or possessed such peculiar value or interest, that he could not be ade-