be paid where the goods are removed, (1) but until removal they are in custodia legis, and cannot be distrained on for rent.(2) A bill of sale of the goods does not constitute a removal,(3) but if the sheriff receive the proceeds under such bill of sale, he will be compelled, on motion, to pay over a year's rent to the landlord.() The practice is for the sheriff to take enough to satisfy both the landlord and the execution creditor, and to make the payment to each of them.(5)

Taxes must be paid.]-The Queen's taxes due at the time of the seizure, to the extent of one year's arrears, must be paid by the sheriff to the collector before sale or removal.(*)

What property may be taken.]—As to the property which may be taken, the sheriff may seize all personal goods and chattels belonging to the defendant which can be sold, (') wearing apparel actually in use excepted;() and any money or bank notes, cheques, (9) bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties, or other securities for money, belonging to the person against whose effects the fi. fa. is issued.(10) Money seized and in the hands of the sheriff is in the same case as money the proceeds of goods seized.(") The sheriff may also sell a lease or term of years, (12) or an annuity for years, (13) belonging to the defendant; but he cannot sell a mere equitable interest, such as an equity of redemption, (14) nor things fixed to the freehold, and which go to the heir and not to the executor. (15) But he may sell

(1) White v. Binstead, 13 C. B. 304.

(2) Wharton, v, Naylor, 12 Q. B. 673.

(3) Smallman v. Pollard, 6 M. & G. 1001.

(*) West v. Hedges, Barnes, 211; Henchett v. Kimpson, 2 Wils.

140.

(5) Wintle v. Freeman, 11 A. & E, 548,

() 43 Geo. 3, c. 99, s. 37.

(7) Legge v. Evans, 6 M. & W. 36.

(8) Sunbolf v. Alford, 3 M. & W. 254.

(9) Courtoy v. Vincent, 15 Beav. 486; 21 L. J. 291, Ch.; S. C., Watts v. Jeffreys, 15 Jur. 435.

(10) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 12. As to what money may be taken, see Harrison v. Paynter, 6 M. & W. 387; Wood v. Wood, 4 Q. B. 397; Masters v. Stanley, 8 Dowl. 169.

(11) Collingridge v. Paxton, 11 C. B. 683.
12) Taylor v. Cole, 3 T. R. 294.
(13) York v. Twyne, Cro. Jac. 79.
(14) Scott v. Scholey, 8 East, 467.
(15) Winn v. Ingilby, 5 B. & A. 625.

utensils fixed by the defendant for the purposes of his trade;(1) and fixtures which may be removed by the tenant. (2) He may seize corn, and other articles raised by the industry of man, which are emblements and go to the executor;(3) but things which yield no annual profit, or are produced without labour, are not emblements, they go to the heir, and cannot be taken. Where the lands are let to farm, the sheriff is prohibited by the 56 Geo. 3, c. 50, ss. 1, 2, from seizing any straw, chaff, colder, turnips, manure, compost, ashes, or seaweed, in any case whatsoever; and any hay, grass, or grasses, whether natural or artificial, tares, vetches, roots, or vegetables being produce of such lands, where there is any covenant or agreement not to take the same off the lands, and of which the sheriff has notice.() [See subsequent sections of the above act for the mode in which the sale of such farm produce must be made.]

Whose property may be taken.]—If the sheriff have any doubt whether any goods are the property of the defendant or a third party, he may impanel a jury to inquire in whom the property is vested :() after seizure he may have recourse to an interpleader issue. If he seize the goods of a stranger he is liable to an action. () Where the execution is against a husband, a term vested in him in right of his wife may be sold;() but not goods vested in trustees before marriage for her benefit although in his possession:() goods purchased by the wife out of money paid to her by trustees under a settlement to her separate use, may be seized, unless they were bought by her as agent of the trustees.(") The goods of a woman cohabiting with the defendant cannot be taken, although she passes for his wife. (1) The goods of a testator or intestate cannot in general be taken in execution for the personal debt of the executor or administrator, unless he has converted the goods. ("1) Where the fi. fa. is against one of the two partners the sheriff may seize the

(1) Farrant v. Thompson, 5 B. & A. 826.
(2) Storer v. Hunter, 3 B. & C. 368.
(2) Allen v. Lloyd, 2 Ir. Law R. (N. S.) 53.
(4) Wilmot v. Rose, 23 L. T. 76 Q. B.
(5) Farr v. Newman, 4 T. R. 638.
(*) Sanderson v. Baker, 2 W. Bl. 832.
(7) Farr v. Newman, 4 T. R. 638.
(*) Heselington v. Gill, 3 T. R. 620 n.
(*) Carne v. Brice, 7 M. & W. 183.
(19) Glasspoole v. Young, 9 B. & C. 696.

goods of both, and sell the defendant's undivided moiety in them; in which case the seizure does not divest the other party of his property in the goods, but the vendee will, it is said, be tenant in common with him.(1)

Goods pawned, or let.]-Goods pawned or gaged for a debt with the defendant, and goods demised or let to him, may be seized, but cannot be sold absolutely.(2) Goods of the defendant pawned and leased to another may be sold, subject to the right of the pawnee or lessee, but not seized before the end of the bailment or term. (3) Goods held by a party in right of a lien cannot be taken in execution against him.() Goods in the hands of a receiver, appointed in a suit in the Court of Chancery, cannot be taken in execution.(5)

Goods fraudulently assigned.]—If the defendant sell his goods after delivery of the writ to be executed, the sale is void as against the execution creditor, unless made in market overt.() And an assignment, though before the delivery of the writ to the sheriff, if made fraudulently to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors is void as against them.(7) Where the writ under which goods are seized is founded on a judgment fraudulent against creditors, the sheriff is bound to sell them under a subsequent writ founded on a bonâ fide debt;() and to reseize them if he has assigned them under the prior execution. (")

Goods privileged.]-The goods of ambassadors and other public ministers of foreign states at this Court are privileged ;(10) and so are the goods ecclesiastical of clergymen.(") Goods distrained cannot be seized in execution.(12)

(1) Johnson v. Evans, 7 Scott N. R. 1035; S. C., 1 D. & L. 935; Heydon v. Heydon, 1 Salk. 392; Burton v. Green, 3 C. & P. 306; Holmes v. Mentz, 4 A. & E. 127.

(2) Dean v. Whittaker, 1 C. & P. 347; Rogers v. Kennay, 9 Q. B. 592.

(3) Scott v. Scholey, 8 East, 476.

(4) Legg v. Evans, 6 M. & W. 36.

(Russell v. East Anglian Railway Company, 20 L. J. 257, Ch.; S. C., 3 Macn. & G. 104.

(6) Samuel v. Duke, 6 Dowl. 536.

(7) 13 Eliz. c. 5; Christopherson v. Burton, 3 Exch. 160; Gale v. Williamson, 8 M. & W. 405.

(8) Imray v. Magnay, 11 M. & W. 267.

(9) Christopherson v. Burton, 3 Exch. 160.

(10) 7 Anne, c. 12, s. 3.

(1) Walwyn v. Awberry, 2 Mod. 257.

(12) Reddell v. Stowey, 2 M. & Rob. 358.

Goods of bankrupts.]—Before the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, all executions after an act of bankruptcy committed by the debtor, followed by a commission or fiat, were void;(1) but such executions are now rendered valid by the 133rd section of that act, if bonâ fide executed by seizure, if against the land and tenements of the bankrupt, and by seizure and sale if against his goods and chattels, (2) before the date of the fiat, or the filing of the petition, (3) provided the person at whose suit, or on whose account the execution has issued, had not at the time of so executing or levying such execution, or at the time of making any sale thereunder, notice of any prior act of bankruptcy by him committed. Notice to the accredited agent of a body corporate or public company is notice to the body corporate or company.() Notice to an agent or to the attorney in the cause is sufficient ;(5) but not to the attorney's clerk,() unless he have the management of the cause.(7) Notice to the sheriff's officer in possession is not enough. (8) The knowledge of one of two partners is prima facie the knowledge of both.(")

Priority of writs.]—If two writs of fi. fa. are delivered to the sheriff against the same person, he must execute that first which was first delivered, though both were delivered on the same day.(10) If on the delivery of the second he has seized goods under the first writ, he may be said iminediately upon the delivery of such second writ to have seized goods under it also ;(") so that if the first be fraudulent, set aside, withdrawn or suspended, the second has priority.(12)

(1) Garland v. Helyar, 4 Bing. N. C. 7.

(2) Whitmore v. Green, 13 M. & W. 104; Hutton v. Cooper, 2 L. M. & P. 104; Standish v. Ross, 3 Exch. 527; Smallcombe v. Oliver, 13 M. & W. 77; Belcher v. Magnay, 12 M. & W. 102.

(3) Ward v. Dalton, 7 C. B. 643; Freeman v. Whitaker, 19 L. J. 351, Exch.; Ramsey v. Eaton, 10 M. & W. 22.

(4) 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 87.

(5) Rothwell v. Timbrell, 1 Dowl. N. S. 778.

(6) Pennell v. Stevens, 6 Dowl. & L. 157.

(1) Pike v. Stevens, 12 Q. B. 465.

(8) Ramsey v. Eaton, 10 M. & W. 22.

(*) Edwards v. Cooper, 11 Q. B. 33. As to what notice is sufficient, see Udale v. Walton, 14 M. & W. 254; Follett v. Hoppe, 5 C. B. 226; Green v. Laurie, 1 Exch. 335; Conway v. Wall, 1 C. B. 643; Lackington v. Elliott, 7 M. & G. 538; Hocking v. Acraman, 12 M. & W. 170.

(10) Hutchinson v Johnson, 1 T. R. 729.

(11) Chambers v. Colman, 9 Dowl. 588.

(12) Hunt v. Hooper, 12 M. & W. 664; Burr v. Freethy, 1 Bing.

Return.]-The sheriff returns fieri feci'generally, or fieri feci as to part, specifying their value, and nulla bona as to the residue. (1) If there are no goods applicable to the writ, (2) or if there has been no seizure, or the proceeds of a seizure have been exhausted in payment of rent, or satisfaction of a prior writ, he returns nulla bona. (3) Or he returns that the goods, specifying their value, remain in his hands for want of buyers,(*) or that error has been brought. (3) A return that the sheriff seized the goods and kept possession until he received from the attorney of the plaintiff an order to withdraw from possession is good.()

Venditioni exponas.]—Where the return is that the goods remain in the sheriff's hands for want of buyers, a writ of venditioni exponas must be sued out to compel a sale of the goods.() If the seizure has been of goods to the amount of part only of the debt, there may be a venditioni exponas as to such part, and a fi. fa. for the residue in one writ. The sheriff is bound, after the delivery of the venditioni exponas, to sell the goods; (8) but not at the value set upon them in his return to the fi. fa. ; (9) and he cannot apply the proceeds in satisfaction of another writ.(10)

Form of venditioni exponas.]--The following is the form of a venditioni exponas.

VICTORIA, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. To the sheriff of , greeting. Whereas, by our writ we lately commanded you that, [if sued out of the Court of Exchequer, "you should omit not by reason of any liberty of your county, but that you should enter the same," &c.] of the goods and chattels of C. D. in your bailiwick, you should cause to be made £ which A. B., lately in our Court of

(1) Willett v. Sparrow, 6 Taunt. 576.

(2) Shattock v. Carden, 6 Exch. 725.

re

(3) Cocker v. Musgrove, 9 Q. B. 223; Wintle v. Freeman, 11 A. & E. 539.

(4) Chambers v. Coleman, 9 Dowl. 588.

(5) Cleghorn v. Desanges, 3 Mod. 83.

(6) Levi v. Abbott, 4 Exch. 588.

(1) Cameron v. Reynold, Cowp. 406.

(8) Keightley v. Birch, 3 Camp. 521; Leader v. Danvers, 1 B. & P. 359.

(9) Charter v. Peters, Cro. Eliz. 598.

(10) Hughes v. Rees, 4 M. & W. 468; Dod v. Colman, 9 Dowl.