SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 123

business as a merchant in the City of Baltimore, and to enable him
the more advantageously to carry on his trade, the plaintiff Charles

quately compensated by damages at law. is not sufficient to warrant the
granting of an injunction. Lewis v. Levy, 16 Md. 85. approved in Welde v.
Scotten, 59 Md. 80. See also Freeland v. Reynolds, 16 Md. 416: Muir v.
Howell, 87 N, J. Eq. 43. Where the injury to be redressed is one which may
be compensated in damages, or the right of property may be tried in an
action of replevin, the plaintiff, 'although a married woman, is still re-
quired to resort to the forms of action prescribed by the common law.
Frazier v. White, 49 Md. 8.

A party holding a prior lieu on land has no right to restrain a subsequent
judgment creditor from enforcing his judgment by execution, as a sale
under such execution could not impair his prior lien, but would leave him,
at law and in equity, in the same condition as if such sale had never taken
place. Union Bank v. Poultney. 8 G. & J. 835.

When the defendant agreed to convey to complainant a tract of land and
give him possession on a certain day and takes complainant's bond for the
purchase money, on which bond he afterwards obtains judgment, equity
will enjoin such judgment and compel defendant to make allowance to
complainant for the value of such part of the land as he may fail to give
possession of at the time agreed upon, from such time till possession be in
fact given. Hilleary v. Crow, 1 H. & J. 542. Application for injunction
against judgment in favor of assignee of the vendor's claim against the
purchaser of land to enforce a concealed equity between vendor and pur-
chaser refused. Kemp v. McPherson. 7 H. & J. 320. Where judgment
creditors assent to a deed of trust made by their debtors, and by their con-
duct induce third parties to purchase land bound by the judgments, and
believe that the creditors would look to the trustees and not to the land for
payment, the execution, of the judgment will be restrained. Doub v. Barnes,
4 Gill. 1: S. C. 1 Md. Ch. 127. Cf. Lynch v. Colegate. 2 H. & J. 37.

Two parties made a parol agreement to purchase land jointly, but the
purchase was made by one alone on his own credit, who gave bond for the
purchabe money, occupied the property for many yeais. sold and conveyed
a part of it, but subsequently proving unable to advance his share of the
purchase money.it was advanced by the other who took a conveyance of
the whole in iee. Held, that judgments rendered against the party who
made the purchase, prior in date to the conveyance are liens upon his inte-
rest in the land, but as to those rendered subsequently to that period, the
party to whom the conveyance is made is entitled to relief by a perpetual
injunction. Hollida v. Shoop. 4 Md. 465. After the execution of a mort-
gage, and before its registration, a judgment was recovered against the mort-
gagor by A. who had notice of the mortgage as soon as it was executed.
The judgment was assigned to B. who issued execution thereon. On a bill
by the mortgagee to restrain the execution, held, that B. acquired only the
rights of his assignor A. and that as A. had notice of the mortgage when the
debt was contracted, and before the judgment was recovered, it must be
postponed to the mortgage. Butler v. Ralim, 46 Md. 541. See Alexander v.
Ghiselin. 5 Gill. 13!:, note.

The allegation that there was a mistake in an account, upon which a judg-
ment was recovered, which was not discovered until after the trial and ver-
dict, and the time for a motion for a new trial had elapsed, is not sufficient
to authorize an injunction restraining execution of the judgment; the error,
if any being apparent on the face of the account, and the relation of the