148 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

rent due from him, this plaintiff avers, that his claim amounts to
$1,648.34.

That about the first of May, 1828. Thomas Clagett stopped pay-
ment and failed in his business as a merchant; and therefore,
he made and executed a deed, on the 17th of May, 1828, whereby
he conveyed to Henry Readel and Daniel Cobb, the stock of
goods and property, of every description, belonging to him in the
store then occupied by him in the City of Baltimore, and all
debts, sums of money and claims due, owing, payable, or belong-
ing to him; and all books, bills, notes, evidences and vouchers
whatever, touching or concerning the same, all which property
was particularly described in a certain schedule, or inventory,
then in the possession of Charles Salmon; to have and to hold the
same in trust for the benefit of the creditors of the said Thomas
Clagett.

That, on the 26th of the same month, an agreement was en-
tered into in the following words: " We, the undersigned, acting
as the representatives of the creditors of Thomas Clagett on the
one part, and Charles Salmon on the other; have agreed and do
hereby agree to the following arrangement, and bind our respective
principals to comply with and fulfil the same, viz:

"1st. A correct inventory of the goods shall be taken bj two
persons appointed by each party, at the cost, or such prices as-
the same have been invoiced at by Thomas Clagett; provided
they have not been set down at more than the actual cost of the
same.

"2nd. The books, notes and other evidences of debt, shall be
forthwith put into the hands of Charles Salmon; who shall use all
due diligence in the collection of the, same. All the personal and
real property ofsaid Thomas Clagett, excepting clothing and watch,

the executor of the principal obligor within nine months after his refusal to
pay, and the consequent loss of the remedy against the estate of the prin-
cipal debtor, is no bar to the action against the surety. Banks v. State. 63
Md. 88.

When the condition of a bond was to prosecute with effect a writ of in-
junction in the Court of Chancery, a failure to prosecute with effect an in-
junction on the equity side of a County Court is not a breach of the bond.
Morgan v. Morgan, 4 G. & J. 400. An injunction bond is only binding with
reference to the judgment it recites, and is security for the payment of no
other, and where the judgment recited is stated to have been at April Term,
1801, when it was in fact at September Term, 1801, it was held that the bond
was not liable. Morgan v. Blackiston, 5 H. & J. 61.

As to what is delivery of a bond, see Clarke v. Ray, 1 H. & J. 318; Burgess
v. Lloyd, 7 Md. 178. As to pleading in a suit on a bond, see Union Bank v.
Ridgely, 1 H. & G. 394; Morgan v. Morgan, 4 G. & J. 395; Armstrong v. Rob-
inson, 5 G. & J. 413. As to damages, Stewart v. State, 20 Md. 97. As to suits
on appeal bonds, see Karthaus v. Owings, 6 H. & J. 134. note (a); 8. C. 2 G.
& J. 430; Woods v. Fulton, 2 H. & G. 56.