|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
636 THE CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE,
it so far as he had gone; but not any further. That is, if he had
taken the defendant into custody 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. Afterwards, 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, (i) And it has been
since applied, under our acts of Assembly, to the time of giving
bond to prosecute the writ of error with effect, which alone ope-
rates here as a supersedeas. Whence it would seem necessarily to
follow, that although a plaintiff might be prevented by a super-
sedeas 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, (j) In these respects the analogous principles
relative to a stay of further proceedings, produced by the super-
sedeas of a writ of error, appear to have been applied to an injunc-
tion to stay proceedings 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) Meriton v. Stevens, Willis, 280; Ringgold's case, 1 Bland, 8.
To the Eight Honourable the Lord Proprietary of this Province; The Humble
petition of Thomas Collins sheweth, That whereas your petitioner the last Provin-
cial Court had a verdict given for him against John Watkinson in a plea of trespass
and ejectment; which said verdict and the judgment 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, pas 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.
3d April, 1688. —C. BALTIMORE, —To the chief clerk or register of the Chancery
Court of Records. Let a writ of error be granted as is prayed; the petitioner 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 Proceed-
ings, lib. C. D. fol. 368.
(j) Eden. Inj. 238; Murdock's case, 2 Bland, 470.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
