CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.—3 BLAND. 615

proceed to complete * it so far as he had gone; but not any
further. That is, if he had taken the defendant into ens- 636
tody under a capias ad satisfaciendum he might detain him; or if
he had levied a fieri facias he might sell the goods and bring the
money into Court to abide the event of the writ of error. After-
wards, when the writ of supersedeas was no longer used, and the
writ of error itself was held to operate as a supersedeas, the same
rule was observed. Meriton v. Stevens, Willis, 280; Ringgold's
Case, 1 Bland, 8. (k) And it has been since applied, under our
Acts of Assembly, to the lime of giving bond to prosecute the writ
of error with effect, which alone operates here as a supersedeas.
Whence it would seem necessarily to follow, that although a plain-
tiff' might be prevented by a snpersedeas from having the product
of an execution upon his judgment which had been actually levied,
yet the sheriff might be allowed to sell, to bring the money into
Court, and to retain the poundage fees.

As a general rule an injunction commands nothing to be done,
or to be undone; its intention and operation is to preserve all
things in the condition it finds them until the equity can be heard
and determined. Eden Inj. 238; Murdoch's Case, 2 Bland, 470.
In these respects the analogous principles relative to a stay of
further proeeedings, produced by the supersedeas of a writ of
error, appear to have been applied to an injunction to stay pro-
ceedings at law. If the defendant had been taken into custody
under a capias ad satisfaciendum before the injunction was served
upon the sheriff, the injunction would not, in itself, operate as a
discharge; but the sheriff might still detain him. Yet. in such
cases, the defendant, by the special interposition of * the
Court of Chancery, might be discharged. In doing which, 637

(k) To the Right Honorable the Lord Proprietary of this Province; the
humble petition of Thomas Collins sheweth. That whereas your petitioner
the last Provincial Court had a verdict given for him against John Watkin-
son in a plea of trespass and ejectment; which said verdict and the judg-
ment thereupon is, this Court arrested on a suggestion grounded only on
the juror's own confession, that he, one of the jury, Evan Carew by name,
was an alien; when, if that were true, yet ought the plaintiff Watkinson to
have challenged him for that; for which reason your petitioner humbly
prayeth your lordship's writ of error, returnable the next Assembly to cor-
rect the said judgment. And your petitioner shall as in duty bound ever
pray, &c.

C. BALTIMORE.—3d April, 1683.—To the chief clerk or register of the Chan-
cery Court of Records. Let a writ of error be granted as is prayed; the peti-
tioner giving good and sufficient security according to the Act of Assembly
in that case provided.

Writ of error, supersedeas. and scire facias then issued, according to the
aforegoing petition and order, 3d April. 1683.—William Cocks, register.-
Chancery Proceedings, lib. C. D. fol. 368.