NOTE.

Mode of Compelling Production of Books &c. under Decree.

Formerly the party was to be served with a writ of execution of the decree, and at the same time with a warrant from the Master for the production. See Gilb. For. Rom. 165. But the production was afterwards compelled by warrant only. See Gilb. For. Rom. Ib. Harr. 476.

The books and papers required must be left by the party, with an affidavit of the same being all that are in his custody, or power, or that he ever had. Harr. 476. Chicot v. Lequesne, 1 Dick. 150. For certificates of production.

2 Turn. Pract. 76.

See Hand's Pract. 259, 260.

Further time for the production may be obtained if necessary.

Harr. 476.

For orders for this purpose. See Hand's Pract. 132.

Upon the Master's certificate of the party's default, a motion may be made that he may produce them within four days, or that he may stand committed (called the four-day order). Parsons v. Parsons, supra. Gilb. For. Rom. 166. Harr. 476.

For certificates of non-production. See Hand's Pract. 258. And upon further certificate of his default the order will be made absolute. Carleton v. Smith, 14 Ves.

The certificate should bear date Hopkinson v. Leach, 3 Swan, 98. supra.

181.

on the day of the motion. And see Carleton v. Smith,

By order of the 29th October, 1692, Beames, 292. the certificate should be filed within four days. But it is sufficient if it is filed before the four-day order is delivered out. Harris v. Detastet, 1 S. & S. 263.

In the case of a commitment for non-production, the party is to be taken into custody by the Serjeant at Arms. Parsons v. Parsons, supra. And see Edwards v. Pool, 2 Dick. 693.

Upon the return of the Serjeant at Arms, a sequestration will be ordered. Lupton v. Hescott, I S. & S. 274, and cases in note. And see Sequestration, No. I. Note, ante.

In Jones v. Powell, ex relatione Mr. Tinney, on a motion to dispense with production upon giving inspection at the counting

house, (as in the case of an interlocutory order for production) the Vice-Chancellor, Sir A. Hart, said that he had known such orders made, and directed an inspection, and that copies should be given at the defendant's expense; but the order was not drawn up.

No. VII.

ORDER TO COMPEL PUTTING IN EXAMINATION. Forasmuch as this Court was this present day informed by Mr. W. being of the plaintiff's counsel, that the said defendants T. L. and E. L. have not put in their examination to the interrogatories exhibited before Mr. H. one of the Masters &c. pursuant to the decree made in this cause, though they have been duly summoned for that purpose, as by the said Master's certificate appears. It is thereupon ordered that the said defendants do in four days after personal notice hereof to their clerk in Court, put in their examination to the said interrogaries, or in default thereof, that the Serjeant at Arms attending this Court do take the said defendants into custody and bring them to the bar of this Court to answer their said contempt; whereupon such further order shall be made as shall be just. Norris v. Le Neve, M. R, 13th November, 1746. Reg. Lib. B. 1746. fol. 10.

For order for some of defendants to put in their examination within a week, to interrogatories exhibited by others. See Hand's Pract. 139.

NOTE.

Mode of compelling Party to put in his Examination. Formerly the party was to be served with a writ of execution of the decree, and at the same time with a warrant from the Master to attend and be examined. See Gilb. For. Rom. 165, 166. But it afterwards became the practice to serve warrants only. See Gilb. For. Rom. Ib. Harr. 475.

The Master will allow the party a reasonable time for putting in his examination, or an order a month's time may be obtained. Harr. 475.

For order for this purpose. See Hand's Pract. 138.

Where the examination is taken by commission, the time for its return is not limited by the order (as it formerly was) but is left to the Master. Hairby v. Emmet, 5 Ves. 683.

After three warrants, and the expiration of the time allowed, a motion may be made on the Master's certificate, that the party may put in his examination within four days, or that he may stand committed. Norris v. Le Neve, supra. Harr. 475.

For Master's certificate. See Hand's Pract. 263.

And upon certificate of his default the order will be made absojute. Harr. 475.

In case of a commitment for default in putting in examination the party is to be taken into custody by the Serjeant at Arms' Norris v. Le Neve, supra. Harr. 475.

If the party while the order is in the hands of the Serjeant at Arms, tenders his examination, the Master is bound to receive it but the party must pay the costs of his contempt. Anon. 2 Mad. Chan. 500.

A party putting in an insufficient examination must pay the costs of it. Hubbard v. Hewlett, 2 Mad. 469.

On three insufficient examinations a motion may be made that the party may stand committed. Harr. 476.

A party in custody for not putting in his examination, may move to be discharged on clearing his contempt. Harr. 476.

If the examination is insufficient, the plaintiff not having accepted the costs, may proceed upon the old process; but he cannot keep the defendant in custody till the sufficiency of the examination shall be ascertained. Bonus v. Flack, 18 Ves. 287.

Upon the return of the Serjeant at Arms, a sequestration will be ordered. Lupton v. Hescott, 1 S. & S. 274, and cases in note. And see Sequestration, No. I. Note, ante.

No. VIII.

ORDER FOR INJUNCTION TO PUT PLAINTIFF INTO POSSESSION (1).

Upon motion this day made unto this Court by Mr. L. being of counsel with the plaintiff, it was alleged, that upon the

hearing of this cause the 3d of July last, it was ordered and decreed that the defendants should restore possession of the lands contained in a former decree in the pleadings mentioned to the plaintiff, and an injunction was awarded for quieting him in such possession, and the defendants were to account for the profits since their entry, and to pay the plaintiff his costs of this suit; which decree hath been since duly signed and enrolled. (2) That the plaintiff having made diligent search and inquiry after the said defendants to serve them with the writ of execution of the said decree, and they absconding and keeping out of the way on purpose to avoid such service, as by affidavit appeared, it was on the 25th of November last ordered, that service of the said writ of execution of the said decree upon the said defendant's clerk in Court should be deemed good service of the said defendants. (3) That the writ of execution of the said decree hath been accordingly served, and possession demanded by virtue of a letter of attorney, (4) and the defendants are now in contempt to an attachment (5) for breach of the said decree, and in not restoring possession, which they at first obtained by a forcible entry; it was therefore prayed that &c. Whereupon it is ordered that an injunction be awarded to enjoin the defendants and the tenants in possession of the said premises to restore the possession of the said premises in question to the plaintiff, pursuant to the decree in the cause. Dene v. Abell, L. C. 10th December, 1728. Reg. Lib. A. 1728. fol. 37. S. C. (Done v. Holt,) cited 2 Dick. 620.

For like orders. See Harr. 522. Equity Draftsman, 624.
For writ of injunction to deliver possession.
Curs. Canc. 370.

See Harr. 559.

NOTES.

(1) See No. IX. Note, post.

(2) See Writ of Execution, No. I. Note, ante.

(3) See Service of Writ, No. I. Note, ante.

(4) See Mode of compelling Payment, No. V. Note, ante. (5) See No. IX. Note, post.

No. IX.

ORDER FOR WRIT OF ASSISTANCE.

Whereas by an order of the 10th of December last, for the reasons therein contained, it was ordered that an injunction should be awarded to enjoin the defendants and the tenants in possession of the premises in question to restore the possession thereof to the plaintiff, pursuant to the decree in this cause; now upon opening of the matter this present day unto the Court by Mr. L. of counsel with the plaintiff, it was alleged that the defendants absconding, the plaintiff on the 19th day of December last went on the premises in question, and there found S. L. and Rebecca Abell, wife of Philip Abell, jun. son of the said defendant Abell, in possession, which they declared they kept for the defendant Abell, and served them, as also J. T. who was in possession of some part of the said premises, with copies of the said injunction, and at the same time demanded of them possession of the said premises, which they refused to deliver, as by an affidavit now read appears. It is thereupon ordered that a writ of assistance do issue, directed to the sheriff of the county of Devon, to put the plaintiff into possession of the premises in question, pursuant to the said decree. Dene v. Abell, L. C. 14th January, 1728-9. Reg. Lib. A. 1728. fol. 94. S. C. (Done v. Holt) cited 2 Dick. 620.

NOTE.

Mode of compelling Party to deliver Possession.

Upon service of the writ of execution of the decree, and default, an attachment issues without order, which is not executed, but only issued as a foundation for subsequent process. See Dene v. Abell, No. VII. supra. Dove v. Dove, 2 Dick. 618, 619. S. C. 1 Bro.

376. 1 Cox, 101.

Upon the issuing of the attachment an order will be made for an injunction to the party to deliver possession as of course. See Dene v. Abell, No. VIII. supra. Dove v. Dove, supra. Gilb. For. Rom. 86. 191. And see Huguenin v. Baseley, 15 Ves. 180. Stribley v. Hawkie, 3 Atk. 275.