The injunction affects the tenant, which the order for delivery of possession does not. Venables v. Foyles, cited 2 Dick. 619.

Upon affidavit of service of the injunction and non-compliance, an order may be obtained for a writ of assistance on motion, without notice. Dene v. Abell, supra. Dove v. Dove, supra. Huguenin v. Baseley, supra. Stribley v. Hawkie, supra. Roberdeau v. Rous, 1 Atk. 544. S. C. 1 West, 566. Pen v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. 454. And see Harr. 333. Wyatt. P. R. 207. Eden on Injunctions, 365.

For writs of assistance. See 2 Harr. 399. Edit. 1767. Curs. Canc. 373. Appendix to Reg. Brev. 46.

Sometimes, after the injunction, a commission was issued to put the party into possession. See Lord Bacon's orders, 9, Beames, 6. and note.

By Prop. 156. subjoined to the Chancery Report, the writ of injunction in the above process is sought to be got rid of.

Order in Case of Receiver.

The Court will put a receiver in possession in a summary way, and will grant him a writ of assistance, without first awarding an injunction. By Lord Parker, Anon. 3 P. W. 379. note.

Whether the like order would not be made in the case of a sequestrator. Q.

No. X.

ORDER FOR SEQUESTRATION MADE ABSOLUTE AGAINST PEER.

Whereas by an order made in this Court on the 20th day of July, 1787, it was, among other things, ordered that the plaintiff Robinson Shuttleworth should, within three weeks from that time, pay into the Bank, with the privity &c. the sum of £ reported due from the said plaintiff to the said defendant. And upon such payment being made, it was ordered that the defendant the Earl of Lonsdale should forthwith execute the re-conveyance of the mortgaged premises in question as settled by the Master, and deliver up to the plaintiff all deeds and writings in his custody or power, relating

thereto. And it was further ordered that service of the said order on the Clerk in Court for the said plaintiff, should be deemed good service on him. And whereas the plaintiff R. S. did pay into the Bank the sum of £- pursuant to the said order, and the said defendant the Earl of Lonsdale was duly served with a writ of execution of the said order on the 16th day of November last, but did not execute the said re-conveyance, nor deliver up the said deeds and writings, or any of them. And thereupon by an order dated the 10th day of December, 1787, it was ordered that a commission of sequestration should issue directed to certain commissioners to be therein named, to sequester the said defendant's the Earl of Lonsdale's personal estate, and the rents and profits of his real estate, until the said defendant should execute the said re-conveyance, and deliver up the said deeds and writings pursuant to the said order of the 20th day of July, 1787, unless the said defendant, having personal notice thereof, should within eight days after such notice shew unto this Court good cause to the contrary. Now upon motion this day made unto this Court by Mr. L. of counsel for the plaintiff R. S. it was alleged that due notice has been given of the said order, as by affidavit appears, and that no cause is shewn to the contrary thereof as by the Registrar's certificate also appears. It was therefore prayed that the said order of the 10th day of December, 1787, may be made absolute; which is ordered accordingly. Shuttleworth v. Earl of Lonsdale, L. C. 9th July, 1788. Reg. Lib. B. 1787. fol. 485. S. C. 2 Cox. 47.

NOTE.

Mode of enforcing Decree against Peer or Member of
Parliament.

Formerly an attachment lay against a peer; but now, by an order of parliament, no process lies against a peer but a sequestration. Anon. Comb. 62. And see Gilb. For. Rom. 66.

Upon service of the writ of execution, an order nisi may be obtained for a sequestration. See Shuttleworth v. Earl of Lonsdale, supra. Crawley v. Clarke, 3 Bro. 373.

And

upon affidavit of service, it will be made absolute. Shuttleworth v. Earl of Lonsdale, supra.

So against a Member of the House of Commons. See Harr.

143.

No. XI.

ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION BY CORPORATION UNDER DECREE.

Whereas, by an order dated the 18th day of June, 1818, it was ordered that the said defendants, the Corporation of Winchester, should within four days after personal notice thereof to their Clerk in Court, put in their examination to the interrogatories exhibited before Mr. T. one &c. in pursuance of the decree made in this cause, or in default thereof, that a commission of sequestration should issue, directed to certain commissioners to be therein named, to sequester the said defendants' personal estate, and the rents, issues, and profits of their real estates, until they should put in their examination to the said interrogatories, or this Court make other order to the contrary. Now upon motion this day made unto this Court by Mr. T. of counsel for the relators, it was alleged that the said defendants' Clerk in Court hath been duly served with the said order as by affidavit appears; notwithstanding which the said defendants have not put in their examination to the said interrogatories, as by the said Master's certificate dated this day appears. It is thereupon ordered that a commission of sequestration do issue directed to certain commissioners to be therein named, to sequester the said defendants' personal estate, and the rents, issues, and profits, of their real estate, until the said defendants shall put in their examination to the said interrogatories, and this Court make other order to the contrary. Attorney-General v. Corporation of Winchester, L. C. 22d June 1819. Reg. Lib. A. 1818. fol. 1289.

See No. XII. Note, post.

NOTE.

No. XII.

ORDER FOR TENANTS TO ATTORN TO SEQUESTRATORS.

Upon motion this day made unto the Court by Mr. T. of counsel for the relators, it was alleged that by an order made in this Court, dated the 22d day of June, 1819, it was ordered that &c. That such commission issued accordingly. That it appears by the certificate of T. R. and R. B. two of the commissioners named in the said commission, that they have applied to G. M. &c. tenants under the said defendants to deliver up possession of the premises severally held by them, or to attorn tenants to the said commissioners; which they have refused to do. It was therefore prayed that the said several tenants named in the said certificate may be ordered to attorn tenants to the said commissioners of sequestration, and to pay their rents in arrear and growing rents to them; which, upon hearing the said order and certificate read, is ordered accordingly. Attorney-General v. Corporation of Winchester, V. C. 4th August, 1819. Reg. Lib. A. 1818. fol. 1832.

NOTE.

Mode of enforcing Decree against a Corporation.

Upon service of the writ of execution of the decree and default, a distringas issues without order. See Harr. 149. Harvey v. East India Company, Prec. in Ch. 128. S. C. 2 Vern. 395.

For writ of distringas. See Harr. 149. App. to Reg. Brev. 53. The form is the same as that of the distringas, to compel appearance or answer; but the indorsement explains the Lowten v. Mayor of Colchester, 3 Mer. 546.

purpose. See

Upon the return of the writ, an order nisi may be obtained for a sequestration as of course, without suing out an alias and pluries, as upon mesne process. See Lowten v. Mayor of Colchester, 3 Mer. 545. Harvey v. East India Company, supra.

And in default of cause being shewn, the order will be made absolute. Lowten v. Mayor of Colchester, 3 Mer. 546. Harvey v. East India Company, supra.

For order for making order nisi for sequestration absolute. Harvey v. East India Company, 3 Mer. 544. note.

Production or Discovery.

See

On the Master's report of the insufficiency of the examination, an order may be obtained for a sequestration, unless the examination is put in within four days; which, upon default, will be made absolute. Attorney-General v. Corporation of Winchester, supra.

And upon the certificate of the commissioners of their refusal, the tenants will be ordered to attorn, and to pay their rents in arrear and growing rents to the sequestrators. S. C.

Payment of Costs.

Payment of costs may be enforced by the same process as the decree, except that a subpoena for payment issues in the first instance, instead of a writ of execution. See Lowten v. Mayor of Colchester, 3 Mer. 543. 546. note.

For order nisi for sequestration for non-payment of costs. See Lowten v. Mayor of Colchester, 3 Mer. 546. note.

It appears by the order that an order was obtained for the subpœna for costs. But that the subpoena for costs issues without order. See Mode of compelling Payment of Costs, No. V. Note, ante.

No. XIII.

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS TO SOLICITOR BY CLIENT.

Upon opening this matter this present day unto the Right Honourable &c. by Mr. W. of counsel for Mr. W. F. it was alleged, that by an order made in this cause, bearing date the 14th day of December, 1811, it was ordered, that it should be referred to Mr. C. one &c. to tax the three several bills of costs in this cause, delivered to the said defendants by Messrs. B. & F. That in pursuance of the said order the said Master made his report, dated the 7th day of February, 1812, and thereby certified that &e. and two of the said bills of costs, amounting to the sum of £--, having been brought before him for taxation, the other having been settled between the parties, the said Master had taxed the same at