to be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal, and not by a Divisional Court Jud. Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 44), s. 1.

By r. 13, “O. XXXI. and O. XXXVI. shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to an interpleader issue; and the Court or a Judge who tries the issue may finally dispose of the whole matter of the interpleader proceedings, including all costs not otherwise provided for."

COSTS.

By r. 15, the Court or a Judge may, in or for the purposes of any interpleader proceedings, make all such orders as to costs and all other matters as may be just and reasonable.

Under the former practice, Plt, if in the right, was held entitled to his costs, and out of the fund in Court, if any: Glynn v. Locke, 3 D. & War. 11, 24; Hale v. Saloon, &c. Co., 4 Drew. 492; and see Clench v. Dooley, 56 L. T. N.S. 122; or to a lien upon it: Aldridge v. Mesner, 6 Ves. 418; Campbell v. Solomans, 1 S. & S. 462; and (inquiries being sent) to be paid out of it at once without prejudice: Sec. for India v. Kelson, L.JJ., Form 5, sup. p. 437.

Plt could obtain his costs at once on motion, unless his right to interplead was disputed, in which case he had to set down the cause: Jones v. Gilham, G. Coop. 49.

A stakeholder litigating the claims separately lost his right to costs against the successful claimant: Laing v. Zeden, 9 Ch. 736; 17 Eq. 107.

Where the conflicting claim was withdrawn after suit brought, Plt had his costs up to that time: Glynn v. Locke, 3 D. & War. 11; sup. p. 438; Symes v. Magnay, 20 Beav. 47.

And see Mason v. Hamilton, 5 Sim. 19; and as to payment by Plt of costs needlessly incurred or increased, Crawford v. Fisher, 1 Ha. 436; E. & W. India Dock Co. v. Littledale, 7 Ha. 57; Jones v. Farrell, 1 D. & J. 208.

When an interpleader summons is taken out by a Deft in an action, he is entitled, on bringing into Court the amount claimed, to deduct his taxed costs to date, the question which of the parties are to be ultimately liable for such costs being reserved: Searle v. Matthews, 19 Q. B. D. 77, n.; and see Goodman v. Blake, 19 Q. B. D. 77; C. v. D., W. N. (83) 207; Aplin v. Cates, 30 L. J. Ch. 6.

A master can only deal with the costs of the interpleader proceedings, not with the costs of the action, and any order by him as to such last-mentioned costs may be appealed from: Hansen v. Maddox, 12 Q. B. D. 100.

As to giving security for costs in interpleader proceedings, v. sup. Chap. IV.,

p. 28.

Sect. 49 of the Jud. Act, 1873, preventing appeals as to costs only, applies to interpleader: Hartmont v. Foster, 8 Q. B. Div. 82.

SECTION II.-INTERPLEADER AT THE INSTANCE OF THE SHERIFF.

1. Order for Sheriff to sell Goods seized, and pay Proceeds into Court-Issue as to Claims.

LET the said sheriff proceed to sell the goods and chattels seized by him under the writ of fi. fa. issued in this action, and lodge the net. proceeds of the sale after deducting the expenses thereof [If so, and the possession money from the day of] in Court as directed in the schedule hereto; And Let the following issue be tried &c. [see Forms 1 and 2, sup. p. 330], that is to say, whether at the time of the seizure by the sheriff the goods &c. were the property of the said C.

(the claimant) or of the said D. (the execution creditor); And Let no action be brought against the said sheriff for the seizure of the said goods [If so, Adjourn &c.]—Liberty to apply [add Lodgment Schedule, Form No. 1].

2. Sheriff to withdraw on Claimant paying into Court, or giving Security for the Amount, and Payment of Possession MoneyIn default, Sheriff to sell-Issue directed.

LET W., on or before &c., lodge in Court, as directed in the schedule hereto, Three hundred pounds; And Let, upon lodgment of the sum of Three hundred pounds in Court on or before &c., and upon payment to the said sheriff of the possession money from &c., the said sheriff withdraw from the possession of the goods seized by him under the writ of fi. fa. herein; And Let, unless such first-mentioned payment be made within the time aforesaid, the said sheriff proceed to sell the said goods, and within ten days from the receipt thereof pay the proceeds of the sale, after deducting the expenses thereof and the possession money, into Court as directed in the schedule hereto, subject to further order; And Let the parties proceed to the trial of an issue in this Court whether at the time of the seizure by the sheriff the goods seized were the property of W. as against the said co., and W. is forthwith to furnish to the sheriff's agents a copy of the inventory exhibited to her affidavit; And Let the issue be prepared and delivered by the Plt therein within twenty-two days from this date, and be returned by the Deft therein within four days after delivery thereof, and be tried at Leeds in the county of York; And the question of costs and all further questions are reserved to be dealt with at the trial of the said issue, and no action is to be brought against the said sheriff for the seizure of the said goods [add Lodgment Schedule, Form 1].-See Re The Newmarket Collieries, Brickworks, and Pottery Co., Lim., Pearson, J., at Chambers, 26 March, 1885, B. 927.

3. Sheriff to remain in Possession on default of Payment or giving Security.

LET upon payment of the sum of £- into Court &c., or upon the said C. giving security to be approved by the Judge, the said sheriff withdraw &c. [Form 2, sup.]; And Let in the meantime, and until such payment shall be made, or security given, the said sheriff continue in possession of the said goods and chattels; And Let the said C. (claimant) pay possession money for the time he shall so continue, unless the said C. (claimant) shall desire the said goods and chattels to be sold by the sheriff, in which case the sheriff is to sell the same, and lodge the proceeds of the sale, after deducting the expenses thereof and the possession money from this date, in Court &c., to abide further order herein; Let the following issue &c. [Form 2, sup. p. 322; Add Lodgment Schedule, Form 1].

4. Summary Order by Consent for Sheriff to withdraw-O. LVII. 8.

AND C., the claimant, and E., the execution creditor, having, by their solrs, consented that the claim made by the said C. should be disposed of on the merits, and determined in a summary manner, and the Judge being of opinion that the goods in question were at the time of their seizure by the sheriff the property of the said C.; Let the sheriff withdraw from the possession of the said goods; And Let no action be brought against the sheriff; And Let the said E. pay the said C. his costs, to be taxed &c.

5. Sheriff to proceed to sell, and to raise and pay Claim and
Expenses-0. LVII. 12.

LET the said sheriff proceed to sell so much of the goods and chattels seized under the writ of fi. fa., issued in this action as will satisfy the expenses of the said sale; the rent (if any) due, the claim of the said C. the claimant, and the said execution; And Let out of the proceeds of the said sale (after deducting the expenses thereof, and rent, if any), the said sheriff pay to the said C. the amount of his said claim, and to the said E., the execution creditor, the amount of his execution, and the residue (if any) to the Deft; And Let no action be brought against the said sheriff.

6. Order barring Claim in favour of Execution Creditor.

LET C., the claimant, be barred from &c. [either as to the whole or part of the subject-matter of his claim], and pay to the said E. the execution creditor's costs of &c., occasioned by the claim, to be taxed &c.

7. Interpleader Order in Chancery Action by Sheriff, where the Trustee in Bankruptcy and Execution Creditor disputed the Right to the Proceeds under Writ of Fieri Facias.

"TAX the Plt's costs of the action; And Let the £- New Cons. (proceeds of execution) in Court to the credit of this cause &c. be sold; And Let out of the money to arise by such sale, and £- cash in Court to the credit &c., the said costs when taxed be paid to &c.;"-But if the money to arise by the sale and the cash shall be insufficient, the whole to be paid on account, and the residue, if any, to be paid to the Plt by the Defts Myatt (bankrupt's trustee) and Mann (execution creditor), and any residue of the fund after payment of the Plt's costs to be paid to the Deft Myatt without prejudice to his right to be repaid by Deft Mann what he shall pay in respect of the Plt's costs;-" And Let the Deft Mann pay to the Deft Myatt what shall be paid to the Plt out of the money to arise by the said sale and the said cash, and Let him also repay to the Deft Myatt what, if anything, he shall so

pay as aforesaid."-Liberty to apply.-Child v. Mann, V.-C. S., 26 Feb. 1867, A. 849; S. C., 3 Eq. 806.

The Payment Schedule to this order would contain directions for carrying out the above terms: see Payment Schedule, Forms Nos. 32 and 35.

For decree, in interpleader suit by the sheriff, adjudicating on the rights of the Defts to the goods taken in execution, and providing for the payment of the Plt's costs of the suit by the Defts in the wrong, see Hale v. Met. Saloon Omnibus Co., V.-C. K., 4 March, 1859, A. 1183; S. C., 4 Drew. 492.

NOTES.

INTERPLEADER AT INSTANCE OF SHERIFF.

By O. LVII. 1, relief by way of interpleader may be granted where the applicant is a sheriff or other officer charged with the execution of process by or under the authority of the High Court, and claim is made to any money, goods, or chattels taken or intended to be taken in execution under any process, or to the proceeds or value of any such goods or chattels by any person other than the person against whom the process issued.

Where the sheriff was paid out under protest by a third person, the money so paid is "proceeds or value" of goods taken in execution within this rule: Smith v. Critchfield, 14 Q. B. Div. 873.

By r. 12, "when goods or chattels have been seized in execution by a sheriff or other officer charged with the execution of process of the High Court, and any claimant alleges that he is entitled, under a bill of sale or otherwise, to the goods or chattels by way of security for debt, the Court or a Judge may order the sale of the whole or a part thereof, and direct the application of the proceeds of the sale in such manner and upon such terms as may be just."

The rule does not enable the sheriff to seize equities, and if goods are claimed by a mortgagee under a bill of sale, the sheriff is not bound to interplead, but may withdraw: Scarlett v. Hanson, 12 Q. B. Div. 213.

Where an interpleader issue is directed instead of a sale by the sheriff, the appointment of a receiver and manager may be ordered under Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8): Howell v. Dawson, 13 Q. B. D. 67.

Where an order is made for sale and satisfaction of a claim out of the proceeds, the claimant is not entitled to demand from the sheriff any sum not included in his particulars of claim under r. 5: Hockey v. Evans, 18 Q. B. Div. 390.

By r. 16, "where a claim is made to or in respect of any goods or chattels taken in execution under the process of the Court it shall be in writing, and upon the receipt of the claim the sheriff or his officer shall forthwith give notice thereof to the execution creditor according to Form 28 in Appendix B. or to the like effect, and the execution creditor shall, within four days after receiving the notice, give notice to the sheriff or his officer that he admits or disputes the claim, according to Form 29 in Appendix B., or to the like effect. If the execution creditor admits the title of the claimant, and gives notice as directed by this rule, he shall only be liable to such sheriff or officer for any fees and expenses incurred prior to the receipt of the notice admitting the claim."

Unless protected by this rule, the execution creditor is primarily liable for the charges of the sheriff, who is entitled to an order against him, leaving him a remedy over against the claimant, if unsuccessful: Smith v. Darlow, 26 Ch. Div. 605.

The other rules cited above (pp. 440-443) also apply to interpleader by sheriffs.

As to the duty of the sheriff to apply immediately, see Tufton v. Harding, 6 Jur. N.S. 116; 8 W. R. 122; and that he must show that he did not get into the difficulty by his own wrong, as by seizing goods without good reason to suppose they were the debtor's: S. Č.; and see Slingsby v. Boulton, 1 V. & B. 334.

Where after the proceeds of sale had been paid into Court, notice of a bankruptcy petition against the debtor was served on the sheriff, and bankruptcy followed, the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to the money against the execution creditor: Heathcote v. Livesley, 19 Q. B. D. 285.

Where an interpleader order has been made under which the sheriff withdraws, execution has been stayed under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4, sub-s. 1 (g), and the judgment creditor cannot issue a bankruptcy notice: Exp. Ford, 18 Q. B. D. 369.

By the Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 71), s. 1, a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy if execution against him has been levied by seizure of his goods, and the goods have been either sold or held by the sheriff for twentyone days, "provided that where an interpleader summons has been taken out with regard to the goods seized, the time elapsing between the date at which such summons has been taken out, and the date at which the sheriff is ordered to withdraw, or any interpleader issue ordered thereon is finally disposed of, shall not be taken into account in calculating such period of twenty-one days." Any person who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment is to be deemed to be a creditor who has obtained a final judgment within sect. 4 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.

Where the goods had been sold, the sheriff might deduct his costs from the money paid into Court; but where the goods had not been, and were not to be sold, he was entitled to his costs from the parties putting him in motion, but not, in the interpleader suit, to costs of possession: Hale v. Saloon, &c. Co., 4 Drew. 492.

As to the sheriff's duty on a fieri facias where there is a partnership account, and his right to interpleader, see Anon., W. N. (75) 204.

A sheriff who has taken out, in respect of goods taken in execution and claimed as separate estate of the debtor's wife, an interpleader summons on which an order for sale in default of payment has been obtained, will not be restrained by injunction in the Ch. Div. from selling the goods: Wright V. Redgrave, 11 Ch. Div. 24.

A party to interpleader proceedings who brought an action and obtained an injunction against the sheriff without waiting for the result of the interpleader had to bear his own costs of the proceedings against the sheriff: Hilliard v. Hanson, 21 Ch. Div. 69.

The claimant, if successful, is entitled to recover from the execution creditor the sheriff's charges subsequent to the interpleader order: Goodman y. Blake, 19 Q. B. D. 77.

Any special damage to the claimant may be adjudicated on, and whether it is or not, no other action can be maintained by him for damages: Death v. Harrison, L. R. 6 Ex. 15; and see Cramer v. Mathew, 7 Q. B. D. 425.

The Judge has power to adjudicate as to damages, although the goods, having been sold, are no longer in the control of the Court: Mills v. Renney, 5 Ex. Div. 313.

By r. 17 (made in 1889), "where the execution creditor does not in due time, as directed by the last preceding rule, admit or dispute the title of the claimant to the goods or chattels, and the claimant does not withdraw his claim thereto by notice in writing to the sheriff or his officer, the sheriff may apply for an interpleader summons to be issued, and should the claimant withdraw his claim by notice in writing to the sheriff or his officer, or the execution creditor in like manner serve an admission of the title of the claimant prior to the return day of such summons, and at the same time give notice of such admission to the claimant, the Judge or master may, in and for the purposes of the interpleader proceedings, make all such orders as to costs, fees, charges, and expenses, as may be just and reasonable."

By 51 & 52 V. c. 43, s. 157, where claims are made to goods taken in execution under the process of a County Court, the registrar may, on the application of the high bailiff, issue a summons calling the party issuing the process and the claimant before the Court, and the Judge may adjudicate upon such claim, and as to any damages arising out of the execution. For practice under this section, see County Court Orders, 1889.

As to appeal in interpleader from County Court, see sect. 157; and Lumb v. Teal, 22 Q. B. D. 675; Collis v. Lewis, 20 Q. B. D. 202; Thomas v. Kelly, 13 App. Cas. 506; Chit. Arch. 1528; and as to interpleader generally, Ib. 1366, 1377.