SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 145

large amount, tor all which he took notes from Thomas Clagett,
which several notes because due and payable at different times be
tween the 20th of Mav and the list of September, in the year

although there be other defendants who have not answered Heck v Voll
mer 29 Md 507

Where the purpose of an injunction was to prevent any disposition of a
market stall, which would embarrass the passage of a nnal decree under
which the complainant s rights could be secured, an ob3ection to the final
decree that it did not dissolve the injunction is untenable The writ served
its whole office by being obeyed till the final decree and no order of disso
lution was necessary to the validity of that decree, which disposed of the
whole matter in controveisy by granting the relief prayed for Musgrave v
Staylor 36 Md 123

XXII VIOLATION OF INJUNCTIONS See Rev Code Art 65, secs 74-76
As to how an attachment for violation of an injunction may be obtained see
Murdoch s Case 2 Bland 486 In Binney's Case Ibid, 100 an attachment
was issued for disobedience to an injunction Nothing can be deemed a
breach of an injunction forbidding the disturbance of a peculiar light of
way which does not interfere with its peculiar exercise Bosley v. Canal,
3 Bland, 63 Generally a motion to dissolve is decided before an attachment
for breach is disposed of Binney s Case, 2 Bland 100

An injunction was granted restraining the defendant J from giving and
the defendant A from receiving a preference from J over his other credi-
tors Proceedings subsequently instituted by A in another Court whereby
he obtains such preference are violationsof the injunction, and Chancery
may treat the same as a nulhtv Winn v. Albert 2 Md Cb 42

XXIII APPEALS Under Rei Code Art 71 secs 41 43,45 an appeal
lies 1 From any order granting an injunction 2 From any order refusing
to grant an injunction according to the prayer of the bill 3 From any
order dissolving an injunction 4 Fiom a refusal to dissolve the same

On appeal from an order granting an interlocutory injunction the allega
tions of the bill alone are considered irrespective of the answer If the de-
fendant desires the benefit of his answer he should on filing it, move to dis-
solve and then on appeal from the order disposing of that motion, the answer
would be before the Court of Appeals for consideiation Dittman v. Repp 50
Md 516 Hankey v. Abrahams, 28 Md 588 Guerand v Dandelet 32 Md 561,
Roman v Strauss 10 Md 89 Eyde v. Ellery, 18 Md 497 Shannon v. Wright
60 Md 520 This rule however, presupposes that the order appealed from was
made by a Court of competent jurisdiction Any objection to the injunction
based upon want of authority in the Court must be examined on appeal Black
burn v. Crawford, 22 Md 447 Under Rev Code, Art 71, sec 41, a demurrer
to the whole bill may be taken as an answer for the purpose of an appeal
Bait v Weatherby 52 Md 442 Any defendant who has answered may ap
peal from the order granting an injunction or refusing to dissolve the same,
without waiting for the answer of his co defendant Ibid, 447 Barnes, v
Dodqe, 7 Gill, 109 As to a case where defendant withdrew his demurrer
nd filed an answer without leave of the Court, and then appealed from an
ider granting an injunction, see Gilbert v Arnold 30 Md 29
Under Rev Code, Art 71, sec 43, the effect of an appeal from an order
planting an injunction is to stay its opeiation in cases where an appeal bond

10 3B.