SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 147

Salmon paid as thej became due. Upon which three several
grounds, including a debt collected by Thomas Clagett, and house-
bond, except as to the costs on the appeal, for which the appeal bond alone
is answerable Hamilton v. State, 32 Md 348

Pending an action of ejectment, the defendant therein applied for an in-
junction to restrain the plaintiff from further prosecution of the action,
and an order was passed directing the injunction to issue The injunction
bond was duly filed and approved but no writ in fact ever issued The
ejectment action, however was entered enjoined The condition of the
bond \vas to prosecute the injunction with effect Held, that it was impossi-
ble for the obligoi to prosecute with effect a writ which never issued His
responsibility, according to the terms of the bond, did not begin until the
writ issued, and the obhgee, before he can maintain an action on the bond
must avei in his declaration that the writ issued that he had been restrained
by it, that it had been dissolved or disposed of and he must also assign a
breach within the condition of the bond according to its letter and terms
Eakle v Smith 37 Md 467 In this case the proper remedy of the obligee,
if he sustained any injury, is on the agreement and not on the bond

If, on an appeal from an order granting an injunction the order is
affirmed, and the thing on which the injunction was intended to operate
exists in specie, in the possession of the defendant the injunction is restored
to its original vigor and if the thing has been consumed, or disposed of, the
complainant s remedy is on the appeal bond Blondheim v Moore, 11 Md
365 The obligation of a surety in an injunction bond is not discharged by
the admission of other parties, as complainants, to prosecute the cause in
which the injunction issued —that cause being a creditor's bill Levy v
Taylor, 24 Md 282 In construing such bond with reference to the question
of the discharge of the surety, the Court will be guided by the intention of
the parties when the bond was executed taking into consideration that the
bill was filed by creditors in behalf of themselves and others who might
come in, and that the bond was given in a judicial proceeding, as a necessary
step to obtain the writ, and to indemnify the adverse party against its effects
and operations Ibid

Where the object of the injunction was to prevent the defendant from
selling or meddling with certain goods, pending a suit to subject the same
to the payment of debts due to complainant and others, the amount properly
recoverable in an action on the injunction bond, is the loss in value of the
goods during the operation of the injunction, not exceeding the penalty of
the bond, with interest thereon from the time of the institution of the suit
Levy v Taylor 24 Md 282 See also, as to evidence and measure of damages
in a suit on the bond Burgess v Lloyd, 7 Md 178, Lange v Wagner, 52 Md
310, Banks v State, 62 Md 88

Where, upon a bill for an injunction, the order directed the injunction to
issue "on the filing of a bond," and the bond was filed, reciting that the
obligors "have obtained" the injunction, and the writ issued, all on the
same day, held, that these must be regaided as simultaneous acts, and that
the bond referred to the injunction then obtained Wallis v Dilley, 7 Md.
237

Injunction bond executed by a person acting under a power of attorney,
held to be valid State v Banks, 48 Md 513 In an action on the bond, it is
error to join the surviving obligor with the executor of the deceased obligor
in the same suit Ibid In an action against the surety on an injunction
bond after the death of the principal, the fact that the obligee failed to sue