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

however, great care would be taken to make him as liable as if he
had been kept in execution for the debt; and particularly, that he
should be responsible for the sheriff's poundage fees, and for all
other incidental expenses. Franklyn v. Thomas, 3 Meriv. 234.

The Act of Assembly has altered the law upon this subject so
far as, that upon the service of the injunction the sheriff must
discharge a defendant held in custody under a capias ad satisfa-
ciendum. 1826, ch. 157. But it is perfectly manifest from the
language of this Act, that it was uot the intention of the Legisla-
ture thereby to impair the rights of the sheriff; or to lessen the
liability of the defendant in any other respect whatever; and, con-
sequently, as we have seen, although the defendant was discharged
from custody, yet the sheriff might recover his poundage fees in
like manner as any other fees. Howard v. The Levy Court, 1 H.
& J. 566.

Upon the same principles it was the established law, that if a
fieri facias had been levied upon the property of the defendant
before the sheriff was notified of the injunction, he could not pro-
ceed to sell; but must return the fact of his having been so stayed,
and hold the property taken until the injunction was dissolved, or
otherwise disposed of. But after the dissolution of the injunction
the sheriff' might proceed to sell, or he might be commanded to do
so by a renditions ezponas. Blacklock v. Maddox, 2 Harris' Entries,
694; Cockey v. Chapman, 2 Bland, 83, note; ———, 6 Peters, 658. (l)

A partial alteration of the law upon this subject has been made
by an Act of Assembly which declares, that, where personal prop-
erty has been taken in execution, the sheriff, on being served with
an injunction, shall deliver it back to the party from whom it
*was taken. 1799, ch. 79, s. 10. This provision is expressly
638 confined to personal property; the law remains unaltered as
to any real estate which may be taken in execution; and, conse-
quently, after the dissolution of an injunction, which had pre-
vented a sale of lands, the proper mode is for the sheriff to proceed

(l) BOYGE v. BRADFORD.—February, 1720.—Mr. Daniel Dulany appears with
liberty to move for a dissolution of the injunction next Court. And foras-
much as the complainant has given good and sufficient security in forty-six
thousand pounds of tobacco in he case here depending between the said
complainant and defendant. Therefore Ordered, by the Chancellor, that
Mr. Sabret Sellers, high sheriff of Calvert County, let the complainant have
liberty to make use of the tobacco in the said sheriff's hands, as he the said
Boyce shall see occasion.—July, 1721.—Answer with liberty to move for a
dissolution of the injunction this Court.—July, 1723.—Exceptions filed to
the answer, to be argued last Court. For answer this Court.—Argued and
adjudged good.—Ruled, that the defendant make a better answer, and
pay the complainant 800 pounds of tobacco, costs, as well on the overruling
the exceptions aforesaid; as for scandal in the answer alleged. Further
answer to be filed according to rule.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. P. L, fol.
568, 672, 887.