126 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

This indenture, made this 22nd of September, 1827, between
Elizabeth Clagett, Edmund Clagett. Samuel A. Clagett, Richard

bailiwick, and being informed of defendant's residence out of his bailiwick,
failed to make the return of non est as he had promised to do. The bill ad-
mitted the defendant's indebtedness for a part of the amount for which the
judgment was recovered, but did not btate how much nor offer to pay it.
Held, that these allegations were not sufficient to warrant the granting of an
injunction. Gardner v. Jenkins, 14 Md. 58. Where an attachment process
has been in fact served on a party, he cannot ask equity to restrain execu-
tion of the judgment of condemnation on the ground of surprise in obtain-
ing it. Peters v. League, 13 Md. 58. Equity cannot restrain execution of a
judgment of condemnation upon the ground that the garnishee was privi-
leged from service of the attachment, because of bis being a member of one
of the Councils of Baltimore City, and in the actual discharge of his duties
as such, at the time the writ was served on him. Ibid. Service of process
upon a privileged person or in a privileged place is not void, but a mere
irregularity, which may be waived by a trial or confession of judgment; the
privilege must be claimed by a plea or motion in the particular case, made at
the proper time. Ibid. Judgments of condemnation in attachments upon
judgments of a Justice of the Peace will not be enjoined upon the ground
that the attachments were improperly issued, because that defence should
have been made, upon the return of the attachments, before the justice.
Wiitcwart v. Alien, 13 Md. 196.

Equity will relieve against a judgment on a bond given for a gambling
consideration, although no such defence was made in the suit at law. and
although the judgment was recovered by a bona fide assignee for value and
without notice. Gough v. Pratt. 9 Md. 326. Cf. Hook v. Boteler, 3 H. &
McH. 348, note. As to when equity will relieve against a judgment on the
ground of usury in the contract on which it was founded, see Hill v. Reif-
snider, 39 Md. 429; Neurath v. Hecht. 62 Md. 321. and cases supra, sec. V.

Where an attorney agreed that a judgment should not be enforced except
upon certain terms, the premature enforcement thereof will be restrained.
Kent v. Ricards, 3 Md. Ch. 393. Where there is an agreement to allow for
payments, and a verdict has been taken by mistake or surprise, equity will
interfere. Chase v. Manhardt, 1 Bland, 333. But when an injunction is
granted on the ground that the defendant at law is entitled to a credit for a
sum less than the whole amount of the judgment, it ought to be with a
proviso that the plaintiff at law may proceed to collect the balance of the
judgment. Hodges v. Planters Bank. 7 G. & J. 307.

To warrant Chancery in entering a judgment, obtained on a bond given
for the whole purchase money of land sold to the complainant, satisfied, or
perpetually enjoining the same, it must vacate the sale upon which the bond
was given. Buchanan v. Torrance, 11 G. & J. 343. Cf. Gale v. Fattle. 14
Md. 69; Buchanan v. Lorman, S trill, 51. A partition made by the County
Court is a nullity if a division of the lands had been before made by the
parties themselves, and the enforcement of such partition will be restrained.
Hardy v. Summers, 10 G. & J. 316.

Judgment was rendered in an action on a single bill which had been given
for the repayment of money loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant. Part
of the money loaned was a post-note of the Bank of the United States which
had been stolen and put into circulation by a forged endorsement. The de-
fendant, not having been able to make his defence of a failure of considera-
tion in the action on the single bill, was held to be entitled to an injunction