the sum of £, whercout being deducted the sum of £paid by the said defendant on account of such costs, the same was reduced to the sum of £- , which was, by the said order, directed to be paid by the said defendant to the said Messrs. B. and F. or one of them. That it appears by the affidavit of W. F. that he did, on the 22d of April instant, personally serve the above-named defendant T. S. with the said report or certificate of the said Mr. C. bearing date &c. by delivering to and leaving with the said T. S. a true copy of such report, and at the same time shewed him an office copy of the said report; and that the said deponent then demanded of him the said T. S. the sum of £, so directed by the said report, or certificate and order, to be paid to the said Messrs. B. and F. or one of them; and the said deponent was lately in co-partnership with Mr. B. but that such partnership was dissolved, and the money due to Messrs. B. and F. as mentioned in the said report and certificate, is now due to the said deponent on his own sole account; and that the said T. S. did not then pay, or hath he at any timesince paid the same to the said deponent; and the same now remains due to the said deponent; and that the said T. S. hath not paid the said sum of money to the said Mr. B. the said deponent's late partner, as the said deponent had been informed and verily believed; and therefore it was prayed that &c. Whereupon and upon hearing the said order, dated the 14th day of December, 1811; the said report, dated &c. the said affidavit, and an affidavit of service of notice of this motion on the defendant read, and what was alleged &c. his Lordship doth order that the said defendant T. S. do, within a week from this time, pay to the said W. F. the said sum of £——, or in default thereof that the said defendant do stand committed to his Majesty's prison of the Fleet. Wilkins v. Stevens, L. C. 27th April, 1812. Reg. Lib. B. 1811. fol. 634. S. C. 19 Ves. 117. NOTE. Mode of Proceeding not between Parties. Where an order is made upon a person not a party to the suit, a writ of execution does not issue, but the mode of proceeding is by obtaining an order for compliance by a given day, and on default another order for compliance by another day, or that he may stand committed. See Anon. 14 Ves. 207. Davies v. Cracraft, 14 Ves. 144. Vickers v. 3 Bro. 372. M'Carty v. Gibson, Mos. 40. Notice must be given of the latter motion. In the matter of Partington, 6 Mad. 71. But see what is said by Mr. Beames, in Exparte Davison, 1 G. & J. 228. Upon default the order will be made absolute. See Davies v. Cracraft, supra. That in bankruptcy the intermediate order is not necessary. See Exparte Davison, 1 G. & J. 227. The commitment is to the Fleet, not to the Serjeant at Arms. Wilkins v. Stevens, supra. Service of an order against two solicitors who were partners, upon one of them, and at their office, is not sufficient. Young v. Goodson, 2 Russ. 255. If the order is for payment of money the person serving the order must have an authority to receive it. Wilkins v. Stevens, supra. And see Mode of compelling Payment, No. V. Note, ante. The following proposition on this subject is among those subjoined to the Chancery Report : Prop. 150. That in all cases where an order nisi is made that a person named do stand committed unless he do an act specified there, the costs of such order nisi shall be paid by such person, although he does the act in obedience thereto without further order, and whether such person be or not a party to the suit; such costs to be certified by the clerk in Court of the party to receive the same. Mode of compelling Purchaser under Decree to complete his Purchase. Formerly it was held that a purchaser under a decree submitting to forfeit his deposit could not be compelled to complete his purchase. Saville v. Saville, 1 P. W. 745. And in Anon. 6 Ves. 513. it is said by the Lord Chancellor that the deposit is the only hold which the Court has upon the purchaser. But the Court will compel a purchaser under a decree to complete his purchase. See Lansdown v. Elderton, 14 Ves. 512. For this purpose the report must be confirmed. Anon. 2 Ves. jun. 335. 2 Fowl. 320. If the purchaser neglect to confirm it, it may be confirmed by the vendor. Chillingworth v. Chillingworth, 1 Sim. 291. If the report has been confirmed by the purchaser, an abstract of the title must be delivered to him. Hodder v. Ruffin, 1 Newl. Prac. 336. note. But if the report has been confirmed by the vendor, it seems that this is unnecessary. Sanders v. Gray, 1 Newl. Pract. 337. note. An order must be obtained for a reference of the title, and if necessary, of the conveyance. See 1 Turn. Pract. 225. 2 Turn. Pract. 249. 2 Fowl. 320. On the Master's report, an order must be obtained that the purchaser may pay the purchase money into Court. See 1 Turn. Pract. 226. 2 Turn. Pract. 250. And upon default an order that he may pay it or stand committed. Lansdown v. Elderton, supra. Discharge of Purchaser. If the report is against the title the purchaser will be discharged. 1 Newl. Pract. 335. So upon error shewn in the decree. Lechmere v. Brasier, 2 J. & W. 287. And he will be ordered to be paid his costs out of the fund in Court. Reynolds v. Blake, 2 S. & S. 117. Or where there is no fund, by the plaintiff; but without prejudice to the question how they are ultimately to be paid. Smith v. Nelson, 2 S. & S. 557. Where the purchaser becomes incapable of completing, he will be discharged, and the estate will be resold. Blackbeard v. Lindigren, 1 Cox, 205. Hodder v. Ruffin, 1 V. & B. 544. For order by consent for discharge of purchaser, and for a resale. See Hand's Pract. 153. F F Mode of compelling Payment of Costs between Solicitor and Client. When the bill is taxed, the solicitor may take out an attachment, and the subsequent process for the costs, upon the Master's certificate, without first taking out a subpoena. Murphy v. Balderston, Barn. 265. S. C. 2 Atk. 114. And see Mode of compelling Payment of Costs between Party and Party, No. V. Note, ante. But previously to taking out such attachment the client should be served with the order for taxation and the certificate. S. C. For certificates. See Hand's Pract. 267. 268. Or upon service of the order and Master's certificate, he may obtain an order for payment within a limited time, or that the client may stand committed. Wilkins v. Stevens, No. XIII. supra. And see stat. 2 Geo. 2. c. 23. s. 23. The following Proposition on this subject is among those subjoined to the Chancery Report : - Prop. 152. That whenever costs are ordered to be paid by a person who is not a party to a cause, or where an order is made in bankruptcy for the payment of costs, then the payment of such costs shall be enforced by subpoena and attachment, in like manner as the payment of costs is enforced against a party to a cause. But whether the present process is not preferable, as more summary. Q. No. XIV. ORDER FOR COMMITTAL FOR BREACH OF IN JUNCTION. Upon opening of the matter this day unto this Court by Mr. B. of counsel for the plaintiff, it was alleged, that by an order dated the 14th day of March, 1815, it was ordered, that an injunction should be awarded to restrain the defendant George Hustwick, from leading or taking away &c. And it appearing by the affidavit of T. R. the younger, that the defendant was duly served with the said injunction, and by the affidavit of the said T. R. &c. that since the 6th day of April last, the said defendant hath ploughed, broken up &c. It was therefore prayed, that &c. Whereupon and upon hearing Mr. H. of counsel for the defendant, and the affidavit of T. R. the younger, whereby it appears that he did serve the said defendant with a writ of the said injunction, by delivering to and leaving with the said defendant a copy of the said writ, and shewing him the original, and the affidavits of T. R. the younger &c. read, and what was alleged &c. this Court doth order, that the said defendant George Hustwick do stand committed to his Majesty's prison of the Fleet. Belt v. Hustwick, V. C. 12th July, 1815. Reg. Lib. A. 1814. fol. 1165. NOTE. Mode of enforcing Injunction. By the writ of injunction compliance is enjoined under a penalty. See Writ of Injunction, Harr. 556. But this cannot be enforced. See 4 Inst. 84. Curs. Canc. 368. Formerly, upon affidavit of service of the writ, and of a breach of the injunction, an attachment issued. Harr. 552. Wyatt, P. R. 47. Gilb. For. Rom. 199. But it afterwards became the practice to move that the party may stand committed. Harr. supra. Gilb. For. Rom. supra. In Harr. 552. it is said, that service of the notice of motion on the Clerk in court is sufficient. But in Angerstein v. Hunt, 6 Ves. 488. it was held, that it should be served personally. And see Ellerton v. Thirsk, 1 J. & W. 376. Gilb. For. Rom. supra. In Harr. 552. it is said, that the Court usually gives the defendant a day to shew cause against the motion. But in Angerstein v. Hunt, supra, it was held, that the motion should be, not that the defendant may shew cause, but that he may stand committed. And see Belt v. Hustwick, supra. Service of a copy of the writ, and shewing the original is sufficient, without delivering the original. Belt v. Hustwick, supra. Woodward v. King, 2 Dick. 797. S. C. [Woodward v. Earl of Lincoln,] 3 Swan. 626. But upon the motion to commit, the writ should be produced. Ellerton v. Thirsk, supra. Service of the writ has, however, been dispensed with. As where |