b. Examination of Debtor. Examination of Debtor as to his Means-Contents of Affidavit.]-A party applying for the attachment of a judgment debtor for non-compliance with an order for his oral examination, must make an affidavit that conduct money has been tendered to the debtor, and also there must be an affidavit showing some good reason for not examining the debtor at his place of residence, and also that there were no other means of ascertaining what debts were owing to the debtor. Protector Endowment Co. v. Whitlam, 36 L. T. 467. Railway Directors, Examination of, as to Debts owing to Company.]-The court has no power to order the directors of a railway company against which judgment has been obtained to be orally examined as to debts owing to the company. Dixon v. Neath and Brecon Ry., 38 L. J., Ex. 57; L. R. 4 Ex. 87; 19 L. T. 702; 17 W. R. 501. judgment creditor is entitled under that rule to his means. Cowan v. Carlill, 52 L. T. 431; 33 to an order for the garnishee's examination as W. R. 583-D. II. ATTACHMENT OF PERSON. 1. Generally, 892. 2. Practice. a. Generally, 893. b. Affidavits, 896. c. Service of Rule, &c., 897. e. Other Matters, 906. 1. GENERALLY. Committal or Attachment-Amendment of Notice of Motion.]-A motion having been made obedience to an order, it was objected by the by the plaintiff to attach the defendant for disdefendant that the plaintiff's remedy, if any, was tween committal and attachment still existed, and that, although permission would be given to the plaintiff to amend his notice of motion, yet the motion must stand over for service of the notice as amended. Callow v. Young, 56 L. J., Ch. 690; 56 L. T. 147. Under Rules of Supreme Court, Ord. XLV.]—by committal:-Held, that the distinction beIn the oral examination of a judgment debtor "as to whether any and what debts are owing to him," the examination is not confined to the question whether any debts are owing and what they are, but any question fairly pertinent and properly asked with a view to ascertain full particulars of what debts there are and which of them may be attached, must be answered. Per James, L.J.: The examination may take the form of the severest cross-examination. Republic of Costa Rica v. Strousberg, 50 L. J., Ch. 7; 16 Ch. D. 8; 43 L. T. 399; 29 W. R. 179. Officers of the Court.]-Where the process of the court has been abused, and undue means have been used in its execution, an attachment, and not an information, is the proper remedy. Anon., 2 Ld. Ken. 372. S. P., Gregory v. Onslow, Lofft. 35. Rescuers from Bailiff.] - An attachment granted against rescuers, upon a return by the sheriff of rescue from his bailiff. Cobby v. Dewes, 10 Bing. 112. Right against Property.]--On an attachment for non-payment of a sum of money under a decree of a court of equity, the defendant was taken in custody by the sheriff-Held, that the Plaintiff had not lost his right to proceed under the decree against the defendant's property. Roberts v. Ball, 3 Sm. & G. 168; 24 L. J., Ch. 471; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 585; 3 W. R. 466; 3 Eq. R. 632. Member of late Parliament for Contempt Non-Attendance-Effect of.]-A judg ment debtor was ordered to attend on the 7th December to be examined under Ord. XLV. r. 1, as to the debts owing to him, with a view to attaching them. He did not attend on that day, and the examination was adjourned to the 21st December. Before the 21st December, upon a judgment debtor's summons, he was ordered to pay the judgment debt by instalments. He did not attend upon the 21st December. Upon the application of the judgment creditor that an attachment might issue for contempt :-) :- Held (Brett, L.J., diss.), that the having obtained an order that the debt should be paid by instalments was not inconsistent with examining the debtor as to debts owing to him, and that the attachment ought to issue unless the debtor attended to be Privilege.]-On a motion for attachment of a examined within fourteen days. Per Brett, L.J.: member of the parliament which was dissolved on the 24th of March, for contempt in not obeyTo pursue the two proceedings concurrently was lawful, but oppressive; the allowing an attach-ing an order of the court to pay certain moneys, ment to issue was always matter of discretion; that the rule laid down in Goudy v. Duncombe &c., to the liquidator of the company :-Held, the Court of Appeal ought not to differ from the court below on a matter of discretion unless it entitled to privilege from arrest for forty days (1 Ex. 430), that a member of parliament was was made absolutely clear that they had exer- both after and before the meeting of parliament, cised their discretion wrongly; and that was not and whether after a prorogation or a dissolution, clear in the present case. Hayter or Haytone v. Beall, 44 L. T. 131-C. A. Reversing, 29 W. R. applies to a person who was a member of the old, but is not a member of the new, parliament. Anglo-French Co-operative Society, In re, 49 L. J., Ch. 388; 14 Ch. D. 533; 28 W. R. 580. 333. Service of Rule for.]-Service of a rule, under s. 60 of C. L. P. Act, 1854, for the oral examination of the judgment debtor upon his wife, without showing that it came to his knowledge not sufficient. Mason v. Muggeridge, 18 C. B. 642. See Bird v. Wretton, 6 W. R. 211. Examination of Garnishee.]-A garnishee against whom an order absolute has been made, and execution issued under Ord. XLV. rr. 3, 4, is a debtor within Ord. XLII. r. 32, and the Infant for not executing Settlement.]—Leave will not be given to issue a writ of attachment against a person who refuses to execute a settle ment which he has been ordered to do under the Infants Marriage Act, ss. 19, 23, until the settlement has been tendered to him personally for execution after service of the decree, and he has refused to exccute it. Att.-Gen. v. Wareing, 28 W. R. 623 Peer.]-An attachment may issue against a peer for refusing to obey the process of the court. Rex v. St. Asaph (Bishop), 1 Wils. 332. Altering Sheriff's Warrant.] Altering a sheriff's warrant is no ground for an attachment, unless an ill use is made of it. Hale v. Castleman, 1 W. BL. 2. Against Witness for Disobeying Subpoena.]-| A subpoena may be issued from the crown office, requiring a witness to attend at the assizes in the country, to give evidence in support of an intended prosecution for a felony; and the court will grant an attachment against him for not attending in obedience to the subpoena. Reg. v. Ring, 8 Term Rep. 585; 5 R. R. 478. Witness-Attachment or Committal.]-Proceedings to compel a party to an action to attend and be examined are by way of attachment and not by way of committal. Erans, In re, Erans v. Noton, 62 L. J., Ch. 413; [1893] 1 Ch. 252; 68 L. T. 271; 41 W. R. 230—C. A. Against Keeper of Asylum for Obstructing Service of Writ.]-A keeper of an asylum having refused to allow service of a writ on a lunatic under his charge, or to bring it to his notice, the court granted a rule nisi for an attachment against him for obstructing its proceedings. Denison v. Harding, 15 W. R. 346. Permanent Maintenance-Non-payment of Instalments.]-A wife having obtained a decree absolute in 1883 for the dissolution of her marriage, and also an order for permanent maintenance, the instalments were duly paid for some five years, but at the end of 1888 the respondent declined to pay anything further, and he had, in fact, paid nothing since that time, although he admittedly had means to do so. Upon motion to attach him-Held, that the application was misconceived, and that as the suit was at an end, there was no jurisdiction to enforce payment of the arrears. De Lossy v. De Lossy, 15 P. D. 115; 62 L. T. 704; 38 W. R. 511. Costs.]-The costs of an attachment are no longer fixed, but by Ord. LV. r. 1, they are in the discretion of the court, and should be disposed of at the time of the application for the writ under Ord. XLIV. r. 2.. Abud v. Riches, 45 L. J., Ch. 649; 2 Ch. D. 528 ; 34 L. T. 713; 24 W. R. 637. When they were applied for subsequently, but no additional expense had been incurred, taxed costs were allowed to the plaintiff, in addition to the fixed sum payable on discharge. Ib. 2. PRACTICE. a. Generally. Application in Chancery Division, how made.] -An application in the Chancery Division for leave to issue a writ of attachment is not properly made by summons in chambers, but should be made in open court by motion. Davis v. Galmoye (No. 1), 58 L. J., Ch. 120; 39 Ch. D. 322; 60 L. T. 130; 37 W. R. 227—C. A. An application for leave to issue a writ of attachment may be properly made in chambers, and (subject to the rule that an order leading to imprisonment must be made by the judge personally) may be dealt with by the chief clerk. Davis v. Galmoye, supra, explained. Davis v. Motion for.]-In order to obtain an attachment, it is not sufficient that all the necessary steps be taken, partly at one time and partly at another. Rogers v. Twisdel, 3 D. P. C. 572. Requirements of.]-An attachment must be directed to elisors, when against coroners for not attaching the sheriff. Andrews v. Sharp, 2 W. Bl. 911. S. P., Rex v. Peckham, 2 W. Bl. 1218. than the precise sum allowed, however small the difference. Daniel v. Bishop, M'Clel. 61; 13 Price, 129. An attachment will be irregular if for more Extent of.]--An application to make a judge's order of a rule of court, and for an attachment for disobeying it, may be made on the same motion. Hinchliffe v. Jones, 4 D. P. C. 86; 1 H. & W. 337. S. P., Forster v. Kirkwall, 4 D. P. C. 370. By Whom Made.]-An attachment for misconduct cannot be moved for by a complainant in person, but must be made by a barrister. Fenn, Ex parte, 2 D. P. C. 527. Notice.]-An attachment may be issued for disobeying an order to do an act within a specified time after notice of the order, although the person served has received actual notice of it by means of an informai service, and the specified time after receiving the actual notice has already elapsed before the order is regularly served. Gregg. In re, and Prance, In re, 39 L. J., Ch. 107; L. R. 9 Eq. 137; 23 L. T. 234; 18 W. R. 589. Under Ord. XLIV. r. 2, a motion for an attachment for removing goods out of the custody of the sheriff can only be made on notice. Jupp v. Cooper (5 C. P. D. 26), considered. Eynde v. Gould, 51 L. J., Q. B. 425; 9 Q. B. D. 335; 31 W. R. 49. Where a reasonable time had not been given between the day of serving a rule for an attachment and the day of showing cause, the court, on making the rule absolute directed the attachment to lie in the office a few days, until notice of that step having been taken should be given to the defendant. Rex v. Giles, 4 D. P. C. 569. The ten days after demand of costs under a recognizance, taken by virtue of 5 & 6 W. & M. c. 11, ss. 2 and 3, must elapse before an attachment can be granted against a party refusing to pay them. Rex v. Ireland, 3 Term Rep. 512. Indorsement of Order-Tender of Expenses.]— An order for attachment of the defendant was made by a district registrar in respect of default in attendance on a future appointment; it also appeared that there was no tender of conduct money in respect of her expenses and that the XLI. r. 5-Held, that any one of these points order was not properly endorsed under Ord. was fatal to the validity of the order for attachment. Shurrock v. Žillie, 52 J. P. 263. Sufficiency of Indorsement.]-By order of the 28th of February, 1884, the defendant was directed to pay a sum into court by the 13th of March. This order not having been served before the 13th of March, an order was made on the 3rd of April, enlarging the time until four days after service of the two orders. The plaintiff served the two orders, indorsing on the former the notice given in Ord. I. of the 7th of January, 1870, but putting no endorsement on the latter. The money not having been paid in, the plaintiff moved for an attachment "for your default in obeying the orders made herein on the 28th of February last and the 3rd of April last," supporting it by an affidavit that the defendant had not borrowed the order for the purpose of paying in the money, nor given notice of having paid in the money-Held, that as the second order did not require the defendant to do any act, but only extended the time for doing the act mentioned in the first order, it was sufficient to endorse the first order only. Treherne v. Dale, 27 Ch. D. 66; 51 L. T. 553; 33 W. R. 96-C. A. Held, also, that the indorsement was sufficient in form, for that although not in the words of the indorsement given in the rules of 1883, Ord. XLI. r. 5, it was to the same effect. Ib. Held, also, that having regard to the nature of the orders, a notice of motion to attach "for default in obeying" them sufficiently stated the grounds of the application within the meaning of Ord. LII. r. 4. Ib. Held, also, that though the affidavit in support of the application would probably have been held insufficient to support an attachment, if the motion had been heard on affidavit of service, the defect was cured by defendant's appearing and resisting the application on other grounds. Ib. Prohibitive Order-Indorsement of Memorandum.]-In order to found proceedings for attachment in respect of non-compliance with a prohibitive order, it is not necessary to indorse upon the order the memorandum mentioned in Ord. XLI. r. 5. Selous v. Croydon Local Board (53 L. T. 209), followed. Hudson v. Walker, 64 L. J., Ch. 204; 13 R. 355. Costs Indorsement on Order.]-On the practice established by the Judicature Acts, it is not necessary that a copy of an order which is served should have the indorsement required by Cons. Ord. XXIII. r. 10, stating the consequences of failing to obey the order. Thomas v. Palin, 21 Ch. D. 360; 47 L. T. 207; 30 W. R. 716. Motion to Commit after Notice.]—A plaintiff who has served a notice of motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment against a defendant in contempt, and obtained an order accordingly, cannot afterwards move ex parte for an order of committal to issue instead of the writ of attachment which he has obtained. Buist v. Bridge, 43 L. T. 432; 29 W. R. 117. Attachment for not Returning a Writ of Fi. fa.]-An application on notice, under Ord. XLIV. r. 2, to attach the sheriff for not returning a writ of fi. fa., should be for an order nisi. Fowler v. Ashford, 45 L. T. 46. Enlarging Rule.]-An application on the last day but one of term to enlarge a rule for an attachment without any affidavit of attempts to serve was refused. Smith v. North, 27 L. J., Ex. 421. Sealing of Attachment.]-An attachment, sealed after an order for time had been obtained, but before it is served, is regular. Hewes v. Hewes, 4 Russ. 508. Attachment is irregular, if sealed and delivered out by sealer before, though not parted with till after, requisite affidavit is filed. Gardner v. Rowe, 4 Russ. 578; 6 L. J. (0.s.) Ch. 175. Attachment sealed before, though not issued till after contempt, is irregular. Frowd v. Lawrence, 1 Jac. & Walk. 657. Attachment not sealed is invalid. Van Sandau, Ex parte, Martin, In re, 1 De G. 303. b. Affidavits. How Intitled.]—Affidavits for attachment in civil suits are proceedings on the civil side of the court until the attachments issue, and are to be intitled with the names of the parties; as soon as the attachments issue, the proceedings are on the crown side, and from that time the Queen is to be named as the prosecutrix. Wood v. Webb, 3 Term Rep. 253. Affidavits to set aside attachments which have been granted (though not issued) must be entitled in the name of the Queen. Rex v. Middlesex Sheriff, 7 Term Rep. 439, 527. Which title is sufficient, without naming the cause, although it is convenient to do so. Rez v. Middlesex Sheriff, 5 B. & C. 389; 8 D. & R. 149. So, affidavits in answer to a rule nisi for an attachment must be entitled in the cause out of which the motion arises; but after the rule is granted, the affidavits must be intitled on the crown side. Whitehead v. Frith, 12 East. 165. Affidavits in answer to any application for an attachment in a criminal case should not be intitled in that case unless the record is in the Queen's Bench, but should be intitled in the court only. Rex v. Stretch, 4 D. P. C. 30. Where a submission to an award is made a rule of court, there being no action, the affidavits on which to apply for an attachment for disobeying the award need not be intitled in any cause, but the affidavits in answer must. Beran v. Beran, 3 Term Rep. 601. Semble, that the proper title of affidavits in support of a rule for an attachment against a sheriff's officer, for extortion in the execution of a fi. fa. is in the cause. Masters v. Lowther, 11 C. B. 848; 31 L. J., C. P. 130; 16 Jur. 374. Where an attachment has issued in a cause, in moving to discharge the person arrested under it. the affidavits must be intitled the Queen against the person arrested in the original cause, and not. simply in the original cause. Brown v. Edwards, 2 D. & L. 520; 14 L. J., Q. B. 17. A rule nisi for an attachment for non-payment of money pursuant to an award was intitled “in the matter of A. & B.," but the affidavit of service was intitled, "between A. B., plaintiff, and C. D., defendant" :-Held, irregular, as the affidavit should have been intitled the same as the rule. Houghton, In re, 2 M. & P. 452. Contents of Affidavit Generally-Service.]— An affidavit for a rule for an attachment for a contempt must state that the party was served personally with a copy of the rule, and that the original was shown to him at the same time. Rex v. Smithies, 3 Term Rep. 351. S. P., Reid v. Deer, 7 D. & R. 612. Irregularity. The affidavit in support Misdescription.]-An attachment for non-payment of money will not be granted. if of a motion for attachment was not served with an affidavit, on which it is sought to bring the the notice of motion as it ought to have been party into contempt, describes the rule of court under Ord. LII. r. 4, but was served two clear as an order. Turner, In re, 6 D. P. C. 6; days before the day named in the notice of W. W. & D. 575. motion for moving the court-Held, that this was not such an irregularity as made the notice invalid. Hampden v. Wallis, infra, col. 900. It is irregular under Rules of Supreme Court, 1883, Ord. LII. r. 4. not to serve with a notice of motion for attachment copies of the affidavits intended to be used on the motion: the copy affidavits, and the notice should be served address for service. (See Ord. IV. r. 1; XII. together, and, if not served personally, at the 10; LXVII. r. 2.) Petty v. Daniel, 56 L. J.. W. R. 151. Ch. 192: 34 Ch. D. 172; 55 L. T. 745; 35 By Whom Made.]-On a motion for an attachment for non-delivery of a bill of costs to a party pursuant to rule of court, the affidavit should be made by the party himself; that of a third person is insufficient. Potter v. Back, 8 D. P. C. 872. Party showing Cause-Necessity for.-The rule, that a party cannot show cause unless he takes office copies of the affidavits on which the rule has been obtained, applies to a rule for an attachment. Reg. v. Carttar, 1 L. M. & P. 274. When Allowed.]—Upon showing cause against a rule for an attachment, fresh affidavits by the party who has obtained the rule are inadmissible, Masters v. Butler, 18 L. J., Q. B. 328; 13 Q. B. 341; 13 Jur. 869. c. Service of, Rule, &c. An irregularity committed in the course of any proceedings under the rules of the court does not necessarily render the proceedings void; under Ord. LXX. r. 1, the court has power to condone the irregularity. Therefore, where an order for attachment for contempt of court had been made against a defendant on a motion the affidavits in support of which had not been served with the notice of motion, as required by Ord. LII. r. 4, the court, being satisfied that a Service of Affidavits-Grounds of Motion-contempt had been committed, refused, in the Amendment of Motion.]-On an application to renew a writ of attachment against the defendant the notice of motion was marked with the name of a wrong judge. No affidavits were served with the notice, nor were the grounds on which the motion was to be made stated. The defendant had in fact subsequently seen copies of the affidavits and filed answers to them :Held, that leave to amend the name of the judge might be given, but that the non-service of the affidavits and the omission to state the grounds of the motion were fatal and were not condoned by the defendant answering the affidavits or by his appearing on the motion. Taylor v. Roe, 3 R. 259; 68 L. T. 213. Motion-Affidavit of Service of Order-Service of Copy of Affidavit with Notice of MotionOrder of Court-Non-compliance.]-A motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment for noncompliance with an order to pay money into court is irregular unless a copy of the affidavit of service of the order has been served with the notice of motion upon the party against whom it is sought to issue the writ. Dunning, In re, Sturgeon v. Lawrence, 63 L. J., Ch. 784; 8 R. 756; 71 L. T. 57. exercise of the discretion conferred on it by Ord. LXX. r. 1. to set it aside; but under the circumstances the defendant, who was in prison under the attachment. was ordered to be released. Hampden v. Wallis (26 Ch. D. 746), and Wyggeston Arbitration, In re (33 W. R. 551), considered. Ib. On a motion for attachment under Ord. LII. r. 4, the affidavit must state that the copy of the judgment or order which is served with it is indorsed in accordance with Ord. XLI. r. 5; an omission to do this is an irregularity which cannot be cured by a subsequent affidavit which is not delivered within the time specified in Ord. LII. r. 5. Stockton Football Co. v. Gaston, 64 L. J.. Q. B. 228; [1895] 1 Q. B. 453; 15 R. 372; 72 L. T. 490. Omission to Serve Copies of Affidavits with Summons.]-Though no copies of affidavits be served with the summons under Ord. LII. r. 4, the circumstances may be such as to supply an equivalent, and by giving the party every advantage which it was intended that the copies of affidavits should convey, take away his right to complain at their absence. Rendell v. Grundy, 64 L. J.. Q. B. 135; [1895] 1 Q. B. 16; 14 R. 19; 71 L. T. 564; 43 W. R. 50—C. A. Service of Copy of Affidavit with Motion.]— On giving a notice of motion to commit a Notice of Motion.]-A party must be perdefendant for contempt in disobeying an order sonally served with notice of a motion for an for discovery, the plaintiffs omitted to serve with attachment, and service on his solicitor in the the notice of motion a copy of an affidavit which cause will not be sufficient, although the order, they stated in the notice that they should read in respect of a breach of which the attachment in support of the motion :-Held, that Ord. LII. is asked for, has been personally served, unless it r. 4, applied to such a notice of motion, and not is shown that personal service on the party only to a case in which a writ of attachment would have issued under the old common law practice, and that the notice of motion was therefore irregular. Litchfield v. Jones, 25 Ch. D. 64; 32 W. R. 288. But held, that the motion should not be at once dismissed, but should be ordered to stand over until after the hearing of a summons by the defendant for further time to make the discovery. Ib. VOL. I. cannot be effected. Mann v. Perry, 50 L. J., Ch. 251; 44 L. T. 248. Contempt of Court-Omission to Serve Copy of Affidavit of Service of Order.]-Upon a motion for a writ of attachment against a defendant for contempt in disobeying an order of the court to which he, by his counsel, had consented, an affidavit proving service of the order must be made and a copy thereof served on the defendant 29 contemporaneously with the notice of motion, in issue for not obeying a judge's order, which has accordance with Ord. LII. r. 4; and for this purpose there is no difference in substance between an adverse order and a consent order. Hall v. Trigg, 66 L. J., Ch. 651; [1897] 2 Ch. 219; 76 L. T. 807; 45 W. R. 703. Breach of Injunction-Non-service of OrderNotice. In order to justify the committal of a defendant for breach of an injunction it is not necessary that the order granting the injunction should have been served upon him, if it is proved that he had notice of the order aliunde, and knew that the plaintiff intended to enforce it. This rule is not limited to cases in which a breach is committed before there has been time for the plaintiff to get the order drawn up and entered. James v. Downes (18 Ves. 522), and Vansandau v. Rose (2 Jac. & W. 264), discussed and explained. United Telephone Co. v. Dale, 53 L. J., Ch. 295; 25 Ch. D. 778; 50 L. T. 85; 32 W. R. 428. Writ not Issued.]-An attachment may be issued for breach of an injunction, although no writ of injunction has been actually issued, when the defendant, after being served with the decree or order for injunction, has disobeyed it. Mining Co. of Ireland v. Delany, 21 L. R., Ir. 8. been made a rule of court, and the rule nisi is not personally served, but the party appears upon it and objects to the want of personal service, such appearance waives the necessity of personal service. Leri v. Duncombe, 1 C. M. & R. 737; 3 D. P. C. 447; 5 Tyr. 490; 1 Gale, 60. If a party is in contempt, it is not necessary that a rule calling upon him to answer it should be personally served. Ib. A motion was made for the attachment of a solicitor for non-compliance with an order of the court upon him, to deliver a bill of costs within a fortnight. It appeared that the order had not been personally served upon him, but had been left with his clerk at his office. The solicitor had written giving reasons for his delay, and promising the bill of costs during the then ensuing week :-Held, that personal service of the order was necessary, and that the necessity for such personal service had not been waived by the letter, and that therefore the motion for attachment must be dismissed. Cunningham, In re, 55 L. T. 766. Service on Solicitor.]-Ord. XLI. r. 5, which requires any order to bear an indorsement warning the party bound by it of the consequences of disobedience, applies to an order for discovery of documents of which service on the solicitor is permitted. And a writ of attachment cannot be issued against a person who disobeys such an order unless the copy served on his solicitor bore the required indorsement. A party whose solicitor was served with such an order without for further time:-Held, that he did not thereby waive the irregularity of the service. Hampden v. Wallis, 54 L. J., Ch. 83; 26 Ch. D. 746; 50 L. T. 515; 32 W. R. 808-C. A. And see col. 903, infra. Breach of Undertaking. -There is no distinction in regard to the service of a notice of motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment between contempt in breach of an undertaking, and contempt in breach of an injunction. the required indorsement, took out a summons Where, therefore, the defendant, in an action, had committed a breach of his undertaking contained in an order of the court, made on motion for an injunction, and personal service of a motion for leave to issue an attachment against him could not be effected, the order was made upon affidavit of service upon the solicitor who had acted for the defendant in the action, notwithstanding that he had ceased so to act shortly after the date of the undertaking. Callow v. Young, 55 L. T. 543. Service of Notice of Motion-Where no Appearance entered.]-A notice of motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment is sufficiently served where the party against whom the attachment is to issue has not entered any appearance, by filing it with the proper officer, pursuant to Ord. LXVII. r. 4. Morris, In re, Morris v. Fowler (44 Ch. D. 151) followed. Erans, In re, Erans v. Noton, 62 L. J., Ch. 413: [1893] 1 Ch. 252; 2 R. 216; 68 L. T. 271; 41 W. R. 230-C. A. Notice of Motion-Service where no Appearance-Filing.]-A notice of motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment is sufficiently served where the party against whom the attachment is to be issued has not entered any appearance by filing it with the proper officer, pursuant to Ord. LXVII. r. 4. Morris, In re, Morris v. Fowler, 59 L. J., Ch. 407; 44 Ch. D. 151 ; 62 L. T. 758; 38 W. R. 522. Extent of Rule requiring Personal Service.]— The court will not make a rule nisi for an attachment absolute, unless there is a personal service, or it appears that it has been seen in the possession of the party sought to be served, even although an attorney of the court, and circumstances are sworn to that leave no doubt that he is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding the service, and the applicant has no other remedy. Pyne, In re, 1 D. & L. 703; 13 L. J., Q. B. 37; 7 Jur. 1109. It is not, in every case, and under all circum Application for Leave to issue Writ- No Appearance entered to Action-Notice of Motion filed. Notice of motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment against a defendant for disobeying an order of the court must, if stances, an inflexible rule, that the court will possible, be served upon him personally, even though he has entered no appearance to the action. Morris. In re, Morris v. Fowler (44 Ch. D. 151), and Ecans, In re, Evans v. Noton (2 R. 216) not followed. Bassett, In re, Bassett v. Bassett, 63 L. J., Ch. 844; [1894] 3 Ch. 179; 8 R. 474. Waiver of Service.]-Where a rule nisi issues to show cause why an attachment should not not make a rule for an attachment absolute, without personal service. Whalley, In re, 14 M. & W. 731 ; 3 D. & L. 291; 15 L. J., Ex. 4 ; 9 Jur. 995. A rule absolute will be granted for an attachment without an affidavit of personal service of the rule nisi if the affidavits disclose circumstances to satisfy the court that the rule nisi has reached the hands of the party, though they show that he is keeping out of the way to |