an injunction may be granted, or a receiver appointed, by an interlocutory order of the court, in all cases where it shall appear to the court to be just and convenient to do so (ƒ). The application may be made either by the plaintiff or by the defendant; by the plaintiff either ex parte or on notice, but usually on notice, and by the defendant on notice only. And if by the plaintiff, then even before the defendant's appearance to the writ of summons; but if by the defendant, only after his appearance to the writ (g).

When by any contract a prima facie case of liability is established, and there is alleged as matter of defence a right to be relieved wholly or partially from such liability, the court or a judge (h) may make an interlocutory order for the preservation or interim custody of the subjectmatter of the litigation, or may order that the amount in dispute be brought into court or otherwise secured (i) ; and the court or a judge may also make an order for the detention, preservation, or inspection of any property being the subject of the action, and may authorize any persons to enter upon or into any land or building in the possession of either party to the action; and, for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, may authorize any samples to be taken, or any observation to be made or experiment to be tried, which may seem necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence (k). Again, the court or a judge may, on the application of either party to the action, make an order for the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandize, which may be of a perishable nature, or likely to injure from keeping, or

(f) Beddow v. Beddow (1878), 9 Ch. D. 89; Day v. Brownrigg (1878), 10 Ch. D. 294.

(g) Ord. L. r. 6.

(h) This expression, except in a few cases, gives a master power to make the order, and, as a matter of practice, an application at chambers, except in those few

cases, is always made in the first instance to a master. The excepted cases include orders for service out of the jurisdiction, for injunction, for receiver, for a writ of habeas corpus, and some others (Ord. LIV. r. 12).

(i) Ord. L. r. 1.
(k) Ibid. r. 3.

which for other just and sufficient reason it may be desirable to have sold at once (l).

II. Interpleader.-Sometimes a person has in his possession goods or money which are or is claimed by different persons, and he is in doubt who is entitled to them or it. This may happen in the case of an ordinary individual, or of a sheriff who has seized goods which some person says do not belong to the judgment debtor. In either case, the person or sheriff can get out of his difficulty by interpleader proceedings. That is to say, he can make an application at chambers, calling on the rival claimants to appear and state the nature of their claims. A defendant may make that application at any time after being served with the writ of summons, and before delivering his defence (m) ; and the sheriff may interplead, where his levy at the suit of the execution creditor is hindered by some person (other than the execution debtor) claiming the goods seized (n). Where the defendant is the applicant in interpleader, the judge or master usually stays all further proceedings in the action (o); and, on the hearing of the application, either summarily disposes of the question, where both parties consent, or where (the matter being a small one) either party requests that mode of decision (p), or will put the issue of fact or of law in a formal shape for trial (q). The decision on such an issue is always appealable, although the summary decision is not appealable, even by leave (r). Under the provisions of the Judicature Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 61), section 17, interpleader proceedings in the High Court, in which the amount or value of the matter in dispute does not exceed 500l., may be removed. into the county court, by order of the High Court.

III. Prerogative Writs.--The principal of these writs

(7) Ord. L. r. 2.

(m) Ord. LVII. r. 4.

(n) Ibid. r. 1.

(0) Ibid. r. 6.

(p) Ord. LVII. r. 8.

(q) Ibid. rr. 7, 9.

(r) Ibid. r. 11; Lyon v. Morris (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 139.

are (1) The writ of scire facias; (2) The writ of procedendo; (3) The writ of mandamus; (4) The writ of prohibition; (5) The writ of quo warranto; (6) The writ of habeas corpus; and (7) The writ of certiorari. We shall shortly consider each of these seven prerogative writs.

(1.) Writ of Scire Facias.-This was a writ founded on some record, requiring the person against whom it was brought, to show cause why the party bringing it should not have advantage of the record, or else, why the record should not be annulled and vacated (s). An instance of the former species was brought in order to obtain restitution after a judgment had been reversed on appeal (t) ; and of the latter species, when the writ was not supplementary to an action, but was an independent and original proceeding, as a scire facias (and now a petition in the nature thereof) to repeal a patent (u), or a scire facias to make the individual members of a company liable upon a judgment recovered against their public officer, sued as representing the company. No specific mention of a scire facias is made in the Judicature Acts; but as it was considered in law an action (s), it may be presumed that, in ordinary civil cases, the proceedings would now be commenced by a writ of summons.

(2.) Writ of Procedendo.-[This writ issues when the judge of an inferior court doth delay the parties, neglecting to give judgment, either on the one side or the other, when he ought so to do (r). In such a case, a procedendo ad judicium shall be awarded, commanding the inferior court, in the name of the Crown, to proceed to judgment;

(s) Arch. Practice (14th ed.), p. 1285.

(1) C. L. P. Act, 1852, s. 132.

(u) Petty Bag Act, 1849, s. 29; Patent Law Amendment Act, 1852, s. 15; Patents, etc. Act, 1883, s. 26.

(x) F. N. B. 153, 240. In some cases an order directing the judge to do what is required of him is substituted by statute for the older method of procedure. (See post, p. 687, n. (ƒ),

[and, upon further neglect or refusal, the judge of the inferior court may be punished for his contempt, by writ of attachment returnable in the High Court.] A procelendo may also be awarded out of the High Court, where an action has been removed to it from an inferior court, and it appears to have been removed on insufficient grounds (y); and by the 21 Jac. I. (1623), c. 23, a suit once so remanded, shall not be again removed before judgment into any court whatsoever.

(3.) The Writ of Mandamus.-The power of issuing this writ (meaning the prerogative writ, as distinguished from the mandamus which was introduced by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (a), and which latter may be described as a mandamus incidental to an action or other proceeding), belongs exclusively to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice (b). [It is a high prerogative writ, of a most extensive remedial nature; and, in its form, it is a command issuing in the King's name, and directed to any person, corporation, or inferior court of judicature, within the Crown's dominions, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to their office and duty; and which the court has previously determined, or assumes, to be consonant to right and justice. In its application, it may be considered as confined to cases where relief is required in respect of the infringement of some public right or duty (c), and where no effectual relief can be obtained in the ordinary course of an action or by other

(y) 21 Jac. 1 (1623), c. 23; Jac. Dict. Procedendo; Garton v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1858), 1 El. & El. 258.

(a) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. Even prior to that Act, there was, for one purpose, a mandamus auxiliary to an action, viz., the mandamus to examine witnesses in India and other British dominions in foreign

parts (East India Company Act, 1772, 8. 44, and Evidence on Commission Act, 1831, s. 1).

(b) Act of 1873, s. 34; Ord. LIII. r. 5; Crown Office Rules, 1886, rr. 60-80; Hayward v. East London Waterworks Co. (1884), 28 Ch. D. 138.

(c) R. v. Bank of England (1819), 2 B. & Ald. 620.

[means (d). Such is the general principle; but as to the specific instances in which the writ will be granted, they are much too numerous for complete detail here. Among other cases, this writ lies, to compel the admission or restoration of the applicant to any office or franchise of a public nature, whether spiritual or temporal, to academical degrees, to the use of a meeting house, or the like; and it will also be granted for the production, inspection, or delivery of public books and papers; or to compel the surrender of the regalia of a corporation; or to oblige bodies corporate to affix their common seal; or to compel the holding of a court, or the holding of an election to corporate and other public offices (e). In addition to which, we may notice, as another important application of this writ, that a mandamus (or an order in the nature thereof) will issue to the judges of inferior courts, commanding them to do justice according to the power of their office, whenever the same is delayed (ƒ); for it is the peculiar business of the King's Bench to superintend inferior tribunals, and to enforce therein the due exercise of those judicial or ministerial powers with which the Crown or legislature has invested them, and

(d) R. v. Bishop of Chester (1786), 1 T. R. 396; R. V. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co. (1852), 1 El. & Bl. 228. It is no objection to granting a mandamus, that the party against whom the complaint is made may be proceeded against by indictment (R. v. Severn Rail. Co. (1819), 2 B. & Ald. 646); but the existence of a specific and adequate civil remedy is an objection to the issue of a mandamus (In re Nathan (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 461 ; R. v. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 131; Rex v. Stepney Borough Council, [1902] 1 K. B. 317).

(ƒ) Under the County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 131, repealing and re-enacting a former provision to the like effect contained in the Act of 1856, s. 43, no writ of mandamus, but only an order or summons in the nature of a mandamus, shall issue to a judge or officer of a county court, for refusing to do any act relating to the duties of his office; and the same is the course with regard to a stipendiary or other magistrate (Justices Protection Act, 1848, s. 5).