The lien of the garnishee must be satisfied before the attachment can be enforced: (Giles v. Nathan, 5 Taun. 558.)

Money in the hands of a sheriff, being in custodiâ legis, cannot be attached (a); but if the proceeds of the execution are paid over to the plaintiff's attorney, they may be attached.

Property in the hands of the Government or its agents, unless the agents make themselves personally responsible, cannot be attached.

Money awarded upon a reference from the superior courts (Grant v. Harding, 4 T. R. 313 n.; Caila v. Elgood, 2 D. & R. 193), and money directed to be paid by the master's allocatur, or rule of court, cannot be attached: (4 T. R. 312.)

The property of the intestate in the hands of the Ordinary cannot be attached.

A debt due to a deceased person cannot be attached on a plaint against his personal representative, although sued as such, unless for a debt due from the deceased.

Money, the produce of goods of testator sold by the executor, cannot be attached in the executor's hands: (Horsam v. Turget, 1 Vent. 111; Bohun, Priv. Lond. 265, 266.)

A legacy cannot be attached in the hands of an

executor.

If an executor take a bond for a debt due to the testator, the money due upon the bond cannot be attached.

(a) See the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 12, giving power to the execution creditor to seize money, bank notes, cheques, &c., of the debtor: (Chit. Archb. 578; Collingridge v. Paxton, 18 L. T. 140; Churchill v. The Bank of England, 11 M. & W. 323; Watts v. Jefferyes, 15 Jur, 435, Ch.)

FORMS.

1. DECLARATION, BY MORTGAGEE, FOR INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN MORTGAGOR FROM WASTE.

THAT the defendant James Styles was seised in fee simple of a farm called Blackacre, in the parish of A., in the county of B., with the appurtenances, and did, by an indenture dated the 1st of May, one thousand eight hundred and fifty, and made between the defendant James Styles of the one part, and the plaintiff of the other part, grant and convey the said farm with the appurtenances unto, and to the use of, the plaintiff, his heirs and assigns, which are now vested in the plaintiff, subject to a proviso for redemption thereof, in case the defendant James Styles, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, should on the 1st of May, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, pay to the plaintiff, his executors, administrators, or assigns, the sum of five thousand pounds, with interest thereon, at the rate of five pounds per centum per annum, as by the said indenture will appear.

That the whole of the said sum of five thousand pounds, together with interest thereon, at the rate aforesaid, is now due to the plaintiff. That there are divers valuable oak, elm, and other timber, and timber-like trees growing and standing on the farm and lands comprised in the said indenture of mortgage of the first of May, one thousand eight hundred and fifty, which trees and timber are a material part of the plaintiff's said security; and if the same or any of them were felled and taken away, the said mortgaged premises would be an insufficient security to the plaintiff for the money due thereon.

That the defendant James Styles, who is in possession of the said farm, has marked for felling a large quantity of the said oak and elm trees and other timber, and he has, by handbills, published on the second December instant, announced the same for sale, and he threatens and intends, although often requested by the plaintiff not to do so, forthwith to cut down and dispose of a considerable quantity of the said trees and timber on the said farm, whereby the plaintiff has sustained and may sustain damage.

That an account may be taken of what is due for principal and interest on the said mortgage.

That the defendant James Styles may be restrained by the injunction of this honourable court from felling, cutting, or disposing of any of the timber or timber-like trees now standing or growing in or upon the said farm and premises comprised in the said indenture of mortgage, or any part thereof.

That the plaintiff may have such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

2. DECLARATION, BY OCCUPIER of Premises, FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST A GAS COMPANY, TO RESTRAIN FROM EXCAVATING UNDER THE PREMISES OF PLAINTIFF.

That the said plaintiff T. H. was at the time of the grievances hereinafter mentioned and still is lawfully possessed and entitled of and to and interested in a certain leasehold piece of ground situate at S. aforesaid, with a warehouse and other buildings thereon, which were used by him the said plaintiff T. H., and are still used by the plaintiff T. H. for the purpose of the aforesaid business of an iron merchant.

That the said piece of ground and premises, have been for many and for considerably more than twenty years last past used, for the purposes of storing and keeping thereon goods of great weight, and there has been for upwards of twenty years, and is now standing thereupon, a warehouse. And the soil of the said piece of ground, and the goods which were and had been from time to time kept and stored thereon, and the said warehouse, have been for a great number of years and for upwards of twenty years last past, and are, of right supported in part by the soil of a piece of land adjoining thereto, now used by a company incorporated by an act of Parliament hereinafter mentioned, and called the S. Gas Company, the defendants hereto, for the purpose of their gas works.

That by an act of Parliament made and passed in the session holden in the ninth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, intituled An Act for Lighting with Gas the Town and Borough of Stockton. and other places in the Counties of Durham and York, it was enacted that the persons therein mentioned, should be united into a company for the purposes thereinafter mentioned, and for such purposes should be incorporated by the name of "The Stockton New Gas Company," being the defendants hereto, and by that name should be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, and should have power from time to time to purchase and hold lands subject to the restrictions thereinafter contained. And it was thereby enacted that The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, should be and the same were thereby respectively declared to be incorporated with the now stating act. And it was by the now stating act provided, that nothing in the said acts or the now stating act contained, should confer on the said company compulsory power of taking lands. And it was thereby enacted, that it should be lawful for the company, subject to the restrictions therein contained, from time to time to continue, make, construct, lay down, maintain, alter, or discontinue such retorts, gasometers, receivers, and buildings, cisterns, engines, machines, and other apparatus, cuts, drains, sewers, watercourses, reservoirs, machinery, and other works, and also such houses and buildings upon the lands thereby authorized to be purchased by the company, and to do all other acts necessary and convenient as they should think proper, for supplying the inhabitants within the limits therein mentioned with gas, and also to sell, dispose of, or manufacture the refuse of any such gas.

That the plaintiff has lawfully occupied the said leasehold piece of ground, and has kept and now keeps thereupon, a large stock of goods in his said business of iron merchant, but not of greater weight than has been accustomed to be kept thereupon for twenty years last past.

That on or about the twelfth day of August instant the plaintiff for the first time became aware, as the fact is, that the defendants were extending, upon the said piece of ground occupied by their said works, an excavation commenced very shortly before that day, so as to approach the boundary of the said leasehold piece of ground belonging to the said T. H., and the plaintiff thereupon gave notice to the said defendants that he should take such proceedings as he might be advised unless an agreement was come to respecting any damage which might be caused by such excavation to the said leasehold premises.

That the defendants refused to come to any such agreement, and the plaintiff has discovered, as the facts are, that since the twelfth day of August the defendants have been deepening and enlarging the said excavation, so that a part of the same now actually extends under a portion of the said leasehold premises, including a part thereof whereon a part of the said warehouse stands, and that the walls of the said warehouse are already damaged by the said excavation, and have cracked from top to bottom, and that if the said excavation be continued the said walls must necessarily fall, and the same are now in an altogether unsafe condition, and in imminent danger of falling.

That the nature of the said last-mentioned excavation is such, that the soil of the said leasehold piece of ground, other than and besides that portion thereof which has been so undermined as aforesaid by the said defendants, is deprived of the support which it ought independently of the said warehouse and goods to receive from the said piece of ground so occupied by the plaintiff, and such that if there were no goods nor building upon the said leasehold piece of ground, but the same was in its natural state, and had thereupon no superincumbent weight whatever, the said soil would be in danger of falling in, and would in fact fall in, if the said excavation continued.

The goods belonging to the plaintiff upon the said leasehold premises, consist among other things of iron rods of various sorts, qualities, and sizes, properly arranged so as to be ready to be supplied forth with upon the receipt of any order for the same, and are properly protected from injury, from damp or otherwise.

There is no covered warehouse or other place in the neighbourhood to which the same could be removed without being exposed to damage or injury, and without being mixed and confused in such manner, as altogether to interfere with and prevent the plaintiff, T. H., from carrying on his aforesaid business.

The defendants threaten and intend, unless they shall be restrained by the injunction of this honourable court from so doing, to continue the said excavation under the said leasehold premises, and otherwise in such manner as to cause irreparable damage and injury to the same, and the said warehouse and goods, and have refused to discontinue such excavation.

The defendants have now or lately had in their possession, custody, or power, or in the possession, custody, or power of their officers, solicitors, or agents, officer, solicitor, or agent, divers or some deeds, books, documents, and notes, and also divers drafts of deeds, bills of costs, cases for the opinion of counsel, opinions of counsel, memorandums, documents, papers and writings, or some or one of such particulars, and also various or some copies of or extracts from some or one of the particulars relating to the several matters herein before stated, or some of them, whereby, if produced, the truth of such several matters, or some or one of them, would appear.