SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 125

Clagett, and the other defendants, who are his mother and bro-
thers, the material parts of which deed are expressed in these
words:

mains and is a sufficient consideration for a new promise to pay them, and
sustains unconditional judgments against him. Ibid. But where a judg-
ment debtor obtains a final discharge under the insolvent laws and subse-
quently the judgment is revived by sci. fa. after two returns of nihil, the
judgment debtor having no notice of the sci. fa. till his property was seized
under the execution, it was held that the final discharge in insolvency was a
valid defence to the sci. fa. and no opportunity having been given the debtor
to plead the same, he was entitled to have the execution restrained. Starr
v. Heckart, 92 Md. 267.

A creditor who has recovered judgment against the executor of a surety
of his debtor may enforce his claim by execution against the property of
such executor, notwithstanding the pendency of an injunction restraining
the creditors generally of the principal debtor from proceeding against him
at law. Beall v. Osbourn, 30 Md. 8.

Execution of a judgment confessed by trustees acting vitro, vires re-
strained. Huntt v. Townshend. 31 Md. 336. Sale of mortgagor's equitable
interest in personalty, under executions on void judgments, restrained at
the instance of the mortgagee. Martin v. Jewell, 37 Md. 530. Application
by one partner to restrain execution of a judgment against him rendered on
a promissory note executed by the other partner, after a voluntary dissolu-
tion of which no notice was given, refused. Taylor v. Hill, 36 Md. 494.
Application to stay execution because the bill of exceptions in the case in
which the judgment was rendered, through the fault of complainant's at-
torney, was not signed in time to allow an appeal, refused. Ruppertsberger
v. Clark, 53 Md. 402. Injunction to restrain, &c., refused, because com-
plainant could, by the exercise of due diligence, have obtained the new evi-
dence, now relied on, in time to use it at the trial at law. Kirby v. Pascault,
53 Md. 531. Refused, because proper exhibits not filed with the bill. Miller
v. Marble Co.. 52 Md. 642.

Application to restrain execution of a writ of possession and enjoin judg-
ment refused because the alleged defects in the proceedings of the sheriff
by whom the sale was made, were within the cognizance of the Court from
which the writ issued. Wilson v. Miller, 30 Md. 82. When a judgment
against a married woman is a nullity, the enforcement of it against her
separate estate will be enjoined. Griffith v. Clarke, 18 Md. 457. The prin-
ciple that a party cannot be relieved against a judgment on any ground
which might have been pleaded or relied on as a defence to the suit, does
not apply to the case when the defendant is a feme covert or not sui juris.
Ibid. In an action two summonses were returned non est against a defend-
ant who was absent from the State, and the plaintiffs having produced their
account with an affidavit of the bona fide indebtedness of the defendant, an
attachment was issued, and a judgment of condemnation rendered: held.
that such voluntary absence was not a sufficient ground for equity to re-
strain execution of the judgment. Norris v. Campbell, 27 Md. 688.

If there be any irregularity in entering a judgment of condemnation by
default against a corporation, because a writ of inquiry was not first had,
such irregularity will not justify the interference of equity to restrain the
execution. Boyd v. Canal Co., 17 Md. 196. A bill to restrain an execution
did not allege fraud on the part of the plaintiff in the judgment, but merely
that the deputy sheriff served the summons on the defendant out of his