cess of contempt to a Serjeant-at-Arms for not &c. [State the default] pursuant to the said order, and cannot be found to be taken thereon, as by the return of the Serjeant-at-Arms appears; And upon reading the said order and return, This Court doth order that a commission of sequestration &c. [Form 1, sup.]

3. The like-on return against a Prisoner.

WHEREAS by the judgment [or order] dated &c., it was ordered &c. [Recite the direction required to be performed]; Now upon motion &c., by counsel &c., who alleged &c. [State the process of contempt issued], that it appears by the certificate of the Governor of Holloway Prison that the said (Deft) B. is a prisoner in the said prison for his said contempt, and upon reading the said judgment [or order] and certificate, This Court doth order that a commission of sequestration &c. [Form 1, sup.]

The order is made on ex parte motion, and on producing the Governor's certificate of the prisoner being in custody.

4. The like-in aid of Decree of the Arches Court-2 & 3 W. IV. c. 93, s. 2.

UPON motion &c. by counsel for W. &c., who alleged that pursuant to the order made in this matter dated &c., a copy of the exemplification of the decree of the Arches Court of Canterbury dated &c. and of the several proceedings thereunder, has been inrolled in the rolls of the (now Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice) pursuant to the Act of the 2 & 3 W. IV. c. 93, s. 2, and that C. (in the said order named) has not paid the sum of £—, being the taxed costs mentioned in the said decree and the said several proceedings thereunder, It is thereupon ordered that a commission of sequestration do issue, directed to certain commissioners to be therein named, to sequester the said C.'s personal estate, and the rents, issues, and profits of his real estate until the said C. shall pay to the said W. &c. the said sum of £—, and this Court make other order to the contrary.-Craig v. Watson, L.JJ., 1 Aug. 1871, A. 2378.

For the preceding order in Craig v. Watson, to inrol the decree of the Arches Court, see Chap. XV., Sect. IV., Form 2, sup. p. 196. The order for sequestration was entitled in the matter of the Act as well as in the cause.

And for an order for sequestration for non-payment of costs after inrolment of a decree of the Court of Arches, see Marriner v. Bp. of Bath and Wells, L. C., 12 Feb. 1879, B. 379.

For order for an injunction in aid of a sequestration against a retired County Court Judge, restraining him from receiving the moneys payable to him in respect of the pension granted to him by Government, to the extent of the arrears of the instalments of the judgment debt; and for the sequestrators to receive that amount from the Treasury or Paymaster General out of the payments due in respect of the pension, and to pay over the same to the Plt, with liberty to apply at Chambers, in case of further default, for similar orders as against any future sums payable in respect of the pension, see

Willcock v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 332; and see Knight v. Bulkeley, 4 Jur. N. S. 527; 5 Ib. 817; 27 L. J. Ch. 592; 6 W. R. 610.

For order against a City corp., which had notice of the application, for payment to sequestrators of the arrears and future payments of a life annuity granted by the corp. to the Deft, see Rees v. Williams, V.-C. K. B., 1848, B. 1106.

NOTES.

PROCESS OF SEQUESTRATION.

By O. XLIII, 6, upon refusal or neglect, after due service of a judgment or order directing payment of money into Court or any other act in a limited time, to obey the same, the person prosecuting the judgment shall, at the expiration of the time limited for the performance thereof, be entitled, without obtaining any order for that purpose, to obtain a writ of sequestration against the estate and effects of such disobedient person: see Sprunt v. Pugh, 7 Ch. D. 567; Sykes v. Dyson, 9 Eq. 228.

The rule applies to things which are to be done within a limited time, and not to things which are prohibited from being done at all, as in the case of an injunction against sewer nuisance by a corp.: Selous v. Croydon Local Board, 53 L. T. 209.

By the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 8, sequestration against the property of a debtor may, after the commencement of that Act, be issued by a Court of Equity in the same manner as if such debtor had been actually arrested.

By O. XLIII, 7, no sequestration for the payment of costs is to be issued unless by leave of the Court or a Judge.

Under Gen. Ord. 7 Jan. 1870, r. 6, in case the disobedient person, after he has been taken or detained in custody, persists in his disobedience, the person prosecuting shall, upon the sheriff's return of capture, be entitled to a writ of sequestration against the estate and effects of the disobedient person; and upon a return of non est inventus the person prosecuting shall be entitled at his option either to a commission of sequestration in the first instance or otherwise to an order for the Serjeant-at-Arms, and to such other process as he was formerly entitled to upon a return of non est inventus to a commission of rebellion: and see O. XLIII, 6.

Where an order has been made for payment of costs without limiting any time for payment, the provisions of O. XLI, 5, and O. XLIII, 6, do not apply, and an immediate sequestration to enforce payment can be issued by leave of a Judge, without any previous four-day order: Re Lumley, Exp. Cathcart, (1894) 2 Ch. 271, C. A.; Re Deakin, Exp. Cathcart, (1900) 2 Q. B. 478, C. A. ; but an order directing a sequestration on a future uncertain event, e.g., on default of payment within a specified time, is irregular: Re Lumley, sup.

A sequestration for costs was granted when it was shown that the debtor had no property other than a military pension, so that a fi. fa. was useless: Snow v. Bolton, 17 Ch. D. 433. In order to obtain such sequestration it is not necessary that any particular available property should be indicated: Hulbert v. Cathcart, (1896) A. C. 470, H. L.

It is questionable whether a writ of sequestration can be properly issued to enforce a simple judgment for payment of debt: see Ex parte Nelson, Re Hoare, 14 Ch. D. 41, C. A.; though sequestrations have been issued in cases where no time for payment was limited; or where the order was to pay by instalments: Wilcock v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 323; and see Dan. 731.

The present practice appears to be to issue the writ, without order, only on judgments or orders for payment into Court, or performance of any other act in a limited time (O. XLII, 4; 0. XLIII, 6); recovery of any property other than land or money (0. XLII, 6); and payment of money or costs within a limited time (Chan. Gen. Ord., 7 Jan. 1870, r. 3); and, by order, on judgments or orders for costs (O. XLIII, 7), and against a corp. (O. XLII, 31).

In the case of a judgment requiring the party to abstain from doing any act, the mode of enforcing a judgment to that effect being as prescribed by O. XLII, 7, by writ of attachment or by committal, sequestration does not seem applicable (Selous v. Croydon Local Board, sup.); but in other cases may be available either instead of, or upon any return to, a writ of attachment, and, as distinguished from attachment, it is also the proper remedy when the persons disobeying the order, from being members of a corp.

it

aggregate (v. sup. p. 425; Spokes v. Banbury Board, 1 Eq. 42; Sutton v. Barnet Board, W. Ñ. (77) 167; A. G. v. Walthamstow Board, W. N. (78) 90; 11 Times L. R. 220), or from privilege of Parliament (see Sect. VII., inf. p. 468), are not liable to process of attachment.

O. LII, 4, as to service of copies of affidavits (v. sup. p. 444), is not applicable to sequestration: Selous v. Croydon Local Board, 53 L. T. 209. For form of order for sequestration against a corp., v. inf. p. 745.

If the writ of attachment has been already issued, an order for the commission of sequestration must be obtained: Form 1, sup.

For form of writ of sequestration, see R. S. C., App. H., Form 13.

NATURE OF SEQUESTRATION.

The commission of sequestration, which is a process of contempt in rem, and not in personam (see Tatham v. Parker, 1 Sm. & G. pp. 513, 514), should be directed to not less than four commrs, nominated by the person prosecuting the judgment or order, and empowers the commrs to enter upon all the messuages, lands, tenements, and real estate of the person disobeying the order and in contempt, and to collect, receive, and sequester not only all the rents and profits of such real estate, but also all his goods, chattels, and personal estate, and keep the same under sequestration until the person disobeying the order of the Court shall have cleared his contempt. For form of writ, see R. S. C., App. H., Form 13; D. C. F. p. 446.

Sequestration to compel payment into Court is not determined by the death of the person against whose property it has been issued, and proceedings may be continued against his legal personal represves: Pratt v. Inman, 43 Ch. D. 175; following Hyde v. Greenhill, 1 Dick. 106.

For the practice before the Jud. Acts as to sequestration continuing against the heir or personal represve, see Burdett v. Rockley, 1 Vern. 58, 118; Wharam v. Broughton, 1 Vez. 180; Coulston v. Gardiner, 2 Ch. Ca. 43; 3 Swa. 283, n.

Sequestration upon mesne process, e.g., to compel appearance or an answer, has been superseded: O. XXXI, 21, 22. For remedies on such default since the Jud. Acts, see O. XXVII; 0. xxxi, 21, 22; and see sup. Chap. VII., "DISCOVERY," and Chap. XII., "TRIAL AND JUDGMENT." Although the writ might be executed in a proper case (see Goldsmith v. G., 5 Ha. 123, and cases there cited), it was usually only resorted to as a step to a decree pro confesso under the old practice.

Sequestration will issue for non-compliance by a non compos with an order for payment of money made against him when sane, provided the order has been served as directed by O. LXVII, 5, and O. IX, 5: Robinson v. Galland, W. N. (89) 108.

Where a respondent in a restitution suit was evading service of decree, and an order as to custody of children, though she was not abroad, sequestration issued without previous writ of attachment or service of the decree or order: Allen v. A., 10 P. D. 187; and see Hyde v. H., 13 P. D. 166, C. A.

PROPERTY LIABLE TO SEQUESTRATION.

Personalty :—

All goods and chattels in the possession of the contemnor, or which can be reached by the sequestrators without suit or action are liable to sequestration; and if the keys are denied them, the sequestrators may open boxes and rooms that are locked, to schedule the goods in them, though they may remove nothing from the house without special order of the Court: L. Pelham v. Ds. Newcastle, 3 Swa. 290, n.; and see Form 1, sup.

It has been doubted whether the books and papers of a corp. could be seized under a sequestration on mesne process: see Lowten v. Colchester Corp., 2 Mer. 395; but by 11 G. IV. & 1 W. IV. c. 36 (Contempt of Court Act, 1830), s. 15, r. 16, sequestrators have the same power to seize books, papers, writings, or other things in the custody or power of a contemnor who has been committed for not delivering them or depositing them in Court, as they would have over the contemnor's own property.

For an order under this rule, see Dodd v. Turnbull, V.-C. H. at Chambers, 15 May, 1879, A. 1092.

Separate estate of a married woman is liable to sequestration: Miller v. M., Î. R. 2 P. & M. 54; and also dividends on a fund in Court or other arrears of income of property to which she is entitled for her separate use without power of anticipation: Claydon v. Finch, 15 Eq. 266; Hyde v. H., 13 P. D. 166; but not future income where she is so restrained: Hyde v. sup.

H.,

A trust fund belonging to the contemnor being in Court in an admon action in the Ch. Div. was ordered to be transferred to sequestrators in an action in the Divorce Div.: Re Slade, S. v. Hulme, 18 Ch. D. 653 (and see Form, ib. at p. 654).

Choses in Action:

If a third person has money or any chose in action in his hands belonging to the party against whom sequestration has issued, it may, provided the holder who should have notice of the application, admits possession and submits to the order of the Court, be directed to be seized by the sequestrators and paid into Court: see Wilson v. Metcalfe, 1 Beav. 263; Crispin v. Cumano, L. R. 1 P. & M. 622; Rees v. Williams, sup. p. 452; Miller v. Huddlestone, 22 Ch. D. 233 (where bankers, upon motion in the action, were required to verify the amount of, or admit, the balance due from them and pay same into Court); and such third person's costs of appearing have been allowed: see White v. Wood, 7 Jur. 1123.

But if the stakeholder, or person indebted, does not consent to the order, or disputes the title of the contemnor and the amount, the Court cannot, it seems, order payment to the sequestrators: Simmons v. L. Kinnaird, 4 Ves. 735; Crispin v. Cumano, L. R. 1 P. & M. 622; Johnson v. Chippendall, 2 Sim. 55, 65; Craig v. C. and Hamp, (1896) P. 171; and see Franklyn v. Colhoun, 3 Swa. pp. 309, 310.

Pensions :

Pensions granted by the Crown entirely for past services may be seized under a writ of sequestration: Willcock v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 323, C. A; Dent v. D., L. R. 1 P. & M. 366; McCarthy v. Gould, 1 Ba. & B. 387; Sansom v. S., 27 W. R. 692; Exp. Huggins, 21 Ch. D. 85, C. A.

But where the services are still being rendered, as in the case of an equerry: Fenton v. Lowther, 1 Cox, 315; or of a naval officer on active service: Apthorpe v. A., 12 P. D. 122; 57 L. T. 518; 35 W. R. 728; or may be again required, as in the case of an officer on half-pay: M'Carthy v. Goold, sup. ; Stone v. Lidderdale, 2 Anst. 533; Collyer v. Fallon, 1 T. & R. 459; Spooner v. Payne, 1 D. M. & G. 388; Crowe v. Price, 22 Q. B. D. 429; the salary or half-pay cannot be sequestered; and see Lloyd v. Cheetham, 3 Gif. 171; nor can the pension of an officer in the army, which is rendered inalienable by the Army Act, 1881 (44 & 45 V. c. 58): Lucas v. Harris, 18 Q. B. D. 127, C. A.; Birch v. B., 8 P. D. 163; secus, money received from commutation of such pension: Crowe v. Price, 22 Q. B. D. 429; and as to a pension which is made inalienable by Indian legislation, under the Indian Pensions Act, 1871, see In re Saunders; Exp. Saunders, (1895) 2 Q. B. 117; (1895) 2 Q. B. 424, C. A.

Where the pension is charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund (15 & 16 V. c. 54, s. 5), the Court has no jurisdiction to order the Lords of the Treasury or the Paymaster General to pay the pension to the sequestrators; but the pensioner may be restrained from receiving, and the sequestrators authorized to receive it, the writ of sequestration being served on the Lords of the Treasury; but it is understood that the Treasury decline to be bound by such an order, and will exercise their discretion as to the extent to which they will recognise and act upon it: Willcock v. Terrell, sup. at p. 451. Real Estate and Chattels Real :—

Rents and profits of real estate paid in kind, or the natural produce of a farm are liable under a sequestration and may be applied; but the land itself, whether freehold, copyhold, or leasehold, or property which passes by title and not by delivery, cannot be sold, as the writ, though it confers a right to take possession, does not transfer the land or the term to the seques

trators: Shaw v. Wright, 4 Ves. 22; and see Sutton v. Stone, 1 Dick. 187; et inf. (II.) p. 458.

Bona Ecclesiastica :

Where the contemnor is a beneficed clerk, and has no lay property, a writ of sequestrari facias de bonis ecclesiasticis and other writs in aid may, on the commrs' return to the ordinary writ of sequestration of nulla bona, and that the contemnor is a beneficed clerk, be issued to the bishop of the diocese, and the benefice sequestered thereunder: Norton v. Pritchard, 2 Sm. & G. 455, n.; Rabbitts v. Woodward, 20 L. T. 693; Braith. 239, 242; Dan. 730; D. C. F. 447, 448; et v. sup. p. 431.

As to the right of an incumbent pending sequestration to appoint a parish clerk, and as to the effect of the Sequestration Act, 1871 (34 & 35 V. c. 45), see Lawrence v. Edwards, (1891) 1 Ch. 144.

As to avoidance of benefice on sequestration, see Benefices Act, 1898 (61 & 62 V. c. 48), s. 10, and as to execution against clergymen generally, see Edw. Exton. 199-209.

(II.) PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEQUESTRATION.

1. Order for Sequestrators to sell and pay in Proceeds-Taxation and Payment of Costs-Power to remove Effects saleable and unsaleable.

"UPON the application of D. &c. [names], the sequestrators acting under the sequestration issued in this action on the day of against the Deft H., and of the Plts; and upon hearing the solrs for the applicants, and for the Deft H.; and upon reading the order dated &c., an affidavit of &c., filed &c., Let the said [names], the sequestrators acting under the said commission, or any three or two of them, be at liberty to sell, or cause to be sold, either by public auction or private contract, the household furniture, goods, chattels, and personal estate of the said H., now at his residence situate &c., and also all the share and interest of the said H. as partner with one J. of and in all the book debts, materials, tools, implements, goods, chattels, personal estate, goodwill, and stock in trade used in the partnership business of &c. carried on by the said H. and J. at &c. aforesaid, under the style or firm of J. and H., all of which household furniture, goods, chattels, personal estate, and property are now under control of the said sequestrators; And Let, for the purpose aforesaid, the said sequestrators, or any three or two of them, be at liberty to remove the same household furniture, goods, chattels, personal estate, and property from the said residence and place of business of the said H. or elsewhere soever the same may have been deposited by or on his behalf to any convenient place in the discretion of the said sequestrators."Sequestrators to pay proceeds into Court, and the costs of executing the writ to be taxed and paid thereout to their solrs, and the balance to be invested." And Let the said sequestrators, or any three or two of them, be at liberty to remove all unsaleable effects and property of the said H. from his said residence and place of business or elsewhere soever the same may have been deposited by or on behalf of the said H., to a convenient place under the control of the said sequestrators." -Street v. Hope, V.-C. M., 21 June, 1875, B. 1584.

For similar order, on the relator's application, and on affidavit of notice to