BINNEY'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 97

same month, the defendant McCord and John Martineau were
brought before the Court under the attachment; when on recur-
ring to the petition, and its exhibits, it appeared, that there was,
in fact, no allegation of Martineau's having violated the injunc-
tion; nor any prayer for an attachment against him—upon which
it was moved, that he might be immediately discharged—and he
was discharged accordingly; and the attachment quashed, as to
him, with costs—the Court being then particularly engaged, it-
was agreed, that the matter of the attachment against McCord
should lay over, with an understanding, that he should be per-
mitted to go at large until called for; but not to be considered as
discharged from the process.

After Avhich, some o.f the defendants filed their answers; and
gave notice of a motion to dissolve the injunction; which motion
was accordingly called up as being ready for hearing on the 8th of
August, 1820; and the plaintiff's solicitor admitted notice—but
*the defendant McCord claimed the privilege of having the
attachment against him iirst disposed of; on the ground of 101
the preference always allowed to cases, where a person is brought
before the Court in custody on a charge of contempt.

BLAND, C., 8th August, 1829.—It is certain that in all cases
where an attachment from this Court is in the nature of mesne
process; or where, as in this instance, it has been issued upon an
ex parts affidavit, for a contempt, of which the party may clear
himself by answering interrogatories, or shewing cause, the
sheriff may take bail for the party's appearance; and although
the sheriff is not bound to take bail, yet if he does do so, he may
sue and recover upon the bail bond, in case the party should fail
to appear. Anonymous, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 84; Dandby v. Lawson, Prec.
Chan. 110; Anonymous, Prec. Chan. 331; Anon. 2 Atlc. 507; Studd
v. Acton, 1 H. Blac. 468; Morris v. Ray-ward, 1 Com. Law Sep.
485; Hurd v. Partington, 1 Exch. Rep. 358; Com. Dig. tit. Bail, F.
8. Upon a return of cepi corpus, the course in England now is, to
send a messenger to bring him before the Court; Anonymous, Pra.
Chanc. 331; Anon. 2 Aik. 507; but here, as formerly in England,
and as in cases at common law, the sheriff may be ordered to
bring in the body. Rex v. Dawn, 2 Salic. 608; Forum Rom. 70, 82;
1785, ch. 72 s. 23; Cowell v. Seybrey, 1 Bland, 18, note; Bry-
son v. Petty, 1 Bland, 182. (f) In this instance, * no bail 102
having been taken, the party is before the Court in custody, and,

as evidence of the meaning of the clause on which the controversy de-
pended.

(/) LEE v. SWEETMAN, 1713.—Ordered, that an attachment of contempt
issue against the sheriff for not returning his writs of attachment against
the defendant.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. P. L. fol. 11.

BLADEN v. FOEBS, 1713.—Ordered, that attachment of contempt issue
7 2 B.