judgment debtor to be taken or charged in execution upon such judgment, then and in such case such judgment creditor shall be deemed and taken to have relinquished all right and title to the benefit of such charge or security, and shall forfeit the same accordingly.

It is to be observed, that by the 17th section every judgment debt shall carry interest, at the rate of 41. per cent per annum, from the time of entering up the judgment, or from the time of the commencement of the Act, in cases of judgments then entered up and not carrying interest, until the same shall be satisfied; and such interest may be levied under a writ of execution on such judgment. Moreover, under the 12th section of the Act, judgment creditors may seize money about to be paid to their debtor out of the Court of Chancery.

SECTION VII.

Of Enforcing the Execution of Decrees.

UNTIL the Act of Parliament, which has been discussed in the preceding section, came into operation, the performance of a decree or order of the Court could only be enforced by process of contempt against the person; in which respect the proceedings of Courts of Equity differed materially from those of Courts of Law, where the writs, by which execution of their judgments are compelled, are not founded upon any contempt of the Court, committed by the defendant, but are considered as a means of satisfying the plaintiff.

In Equity, however, the case was different, for till the Orders of the 10th of May, 1839, were promulgated, the process for enforcing obedience to decrees and orders of the Court was in all cases founded upon contempt. Those Orders made an important alteration in the law of the Court, by providing the forms of writs of fieri facias, elegit and venditioni exponas, similar to those adopted by Courts of Law, which a party may resort to for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction of any pecuniary demand arising from a decree or order of the Court of Chancery.1

1 It is a general rule that Courts of Chancery have the power to issue all process that may be necessary to carry their decrees into effectual execution. Ludlow v. Lansing, 1 Hopk. 231; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 6 Pick.

These writs are devised, pursuant to the direction of the statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, by which, as we have seen,1 the same effect is given to decrees and orders of Courts of Equity, provided they are duly entered with the proper officer of the Court of Common Pleas, pursuant to the 19th section, as is given by the Act to judgments in the superior Courts of Common Law.2

The effect of these writs has been mentioned in the preceding section, and it is therefore merely necessary, in this place, to call the reader's attention to the regulations respecting them, which have been promulgated by the above Orders.*

By those Orders it is provided, 1st, "That every person to whom in any cause or matter pending in the Court, any sum of money, or any costs, have been ordered to be paid, shall, after the lapse of one month from the time when such order for payment was duly passed and entered, be entitled, by his solicitor, to sue out one or more writ or writs of fieri facias, or writ or writs of elegit, of the form thereinafter stated, or as near thereto as the circumstances of the case may require." 5

By the 2d Order of the 10th of May, 1839, it is directed, "That upon every such order thereafter to be entered, the entering clerk of the Court, in whose division the same may be, shall, at the re

395; Jones v. Boston Mill Corp. 4 Pick. 509; Grew v. Breed, 12 Metcalf, 363, 370, 371; Scott v. Jailer, 1 Grant's Cases (Penn.) 237.

To enforce the execution of a decree for the payment of money, and also for indemnification, in Maryland, the plaintiff may have a ca. sa. and an attachment at the same time. Bryson v. Petty, 1 Bland, 183. See Brockway v. Copp, 2 Paige, 578; Patrick v. Warner, 4 Paige, 397; People v. Bennett, ib. 282; 2 Hoff. Ch. Pr. 92; Minthorne v. Tompkins, 2 Paige, 102; Hall v. Dana, 2 Aiken, 381; Wallen v. Williams, 7 Cranch, 602; Kershaw v. Thompson, 4 John. Ch. 609; Richardson v. Jones, 3 Gill and John. 163.

But a decree in Equity for the payment of money due upon a contract, cannot be enforced by attachment, in Pennsylvania, since the Act of July 12, 1842, abolishing imprisonment for debt. Seott v. Jailer, 1 Grant's Cases (Penn.) 237. 1 Ante, p. 783.

* In Massachusetts, "the Court may issue writs of seisin and execution in common form when such process appears to be an appropriate method of enforcing a decree in Equity." Genl. Sts. c. 113, s. 23.

* Ante, p. 799.

• These orders issued under the authority of the 20th section of the Act. The 11th and 12th Orders of August, 1841, have provided another mode of compelling the payment of money ordered by a decree; but they have not superseded the remedies given by the Orders of May, 1839. Streeton v. Whitmore, 5 Beav. 228.

quest of the party leaving the same, mark the day of the month and year on which the same shall be left for entry, and no writ of fieri facias or elegit shall be sued out upon any such order, unless the date of such entry shall be so marked thereon as aforesaid." 1

By the 3d, "That such writs, when sealed, shall be delivered to the sheriff or other officer to whom the execution of the like writs issuing out of the superior Courts of Common Law belongs, and shall be executed by such sheriff or other officer, as nearly as may be, in the same manner in which he doth or ought to execute such like writs; and such writs, when returned by such sheriff or other officer, shall be delivered to the solicitors by whom respectively they were sued out, or be left at their respective seats, and shall thereupon be filed as of record in the office of the Record and Writ Clerks of this Court. And that for the execution of such writs, such sheriff or other officer shall not take or be allowed any fees other than such as are or shall be from time to time allowed by lawful authority for the execution of the like writs issuing out of the superior Courts of Common Law." 2

By the 4th, "If it shall appear upon the return of any such writ of fieri facias as aforesaid, that the sheriff or other officer hath, by virtue of such writ, seized but not sold any goods of the person ordered to pay such sum of money or costs as aforesaid, the person to whom such sum of money or costs are payable, shall, immediately after such writ with such return shall be filed as of record, be at liberty, by his solicitor, to sue out a writ of venditioni exponas, in the form thereinafter stated, or as near thereto as the circumstances of the case may require."

By the 5th, "On every such writ of fieri facias and elegit, so to be issued as aforesaid, there shall be indorsed the words, 'By the Court,' and also, thereunder, the calling and place of residence of the party against whom such writ shall be issued, and also the name and residence or place of business of the solicitor at whose instance the same shall be issued; and that every such writ be also indorsed for the sum to be levied, according to the form used upon like writs issuing out of the superior Courts of Common Law."

1 If the sum levied under the fi. fa. does not satisfy the amount due, it appears that another writ may issue intoanother county. Spencer v. Allen, 2 Phil. 215.

The sheriff levying under this writ, when issued by the Court of Chancery, is not entitled to an injunction to restrain proceedings against him by strangers to the suit. Rock v. Cook, 2 De G. & Sm. 493; 2 Phil. 691.

By the 6th, "For every such writ of fieri facias or venditioni exponas, so to be issued as aforesaid, there shall be allowed to the Record and Writ Clerk issuing the same the sum of eighteen shillings and seven pence; and for every such writ of elegit, the sum of one pound ten shillings; and that there be allowed to the solicitor, at whose instance any such writ of fieri facias, elegit, or venditioni exponas shall be issued, the sum of six shillings and eight pence for instructions for the said writ; and that there also be allowed to such solicitor the further sum of six shillings and eight pence for attending to procure a warrant, and for attending to instruct the officer charged with the execution of such writ."

It is to be observed, that the above orders and writs do not supersede the ordinary remedies of the Court for enforcing its decrees and orders, and that in fact they are only applicable to cases in which money or costs are decreed or ordered to be paid by one party to another; they are, consequently, totally inapplicable to cases where any other act is ordered to be done by a party, or even to cases of orders for payment of money into the name of the Accountant-General of the Court; orders or decrees of this description must, therefore, still be enforced by the ordinary process.1

1 It is to be recollected, that, by the 16th sect. of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, it is provided, that if any judgment creditor, who, under the powers of the Act, shall have obtained any charge, or be entitled to the benefit of any security whatsoever, shall afterwards, and before the property so charged or secured shall have been converted into money or realized, and the produce thereof applied towards payment of the judgment debt, cause the person of the judgment debtor to be taken or charged in execution upon such judgment, then and in such case such judgment creditor shall be deemed and taken to have relinquished all right and title to the benefit of such charge or security, and shall forfeit the same accordingly; so that, although Courts of Equity do not enforce their judgments by ca. sa., as the Courts of Law, but merely by process of contempt, upon which a party in default may be arrested for not obeying the order of the Court, yet as such process is generally considered as in the nature of an execution, it is probable that it will be held, that, upon the equity of the statute, a party arresting another upon such process to enforce the performance of a decree, will have deprived himself of the benefit of the statute. By the 10th Equity Rule of the United States Courts it is provided that "Every person, not being a party in any cause, who has obtained an order, or in whose favor an order shall have been made, shall be enabled to enforce obedience to such order by the same process, as if he were a party to the cause; and every person, not being a party in any cause, against whom obedience to any order of the Court may be enforced, shall be liable to the same process for enforcing obedience to such order, as if he were a party in the cause.

Under the original jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, no compulsory process issued against any party until he had been served with a mandate under the Great Seal, commanding him to do what the Court required of him; for the offence committed was the not paying obedience to the Great Seal, consequently, the mere service of a copy of the decree or order was not sufficient, but a writ under the Great Seal was necessary.

The Orders of August, 1841, made an alteration in this respect, by the 10th of which it is directed, "That no writ of execution shall hereafter be issued for the purpose of requiring or compelling obedience to any order or decree of the High Court of Chancery; but that the party required by any such order or decree to do any act shall, upon being duly served with such order, be held bound to do such act in obedience to the order or decree." 2

The 10th Order of August, 1841, as amended by the 6th Order of April, 1842, having provided that no writ of execution shall now be issued, there is no longer any necessity for this short order as a foundation for the suing out of such a writ; moreover, a separate order is not now requisite for the purpose of fixing the time within which a party is to comply with the commands of a decree, for the 12th Order of August, 1841, as amended by the 6th Order of April, 1842, has directed, "That every order or decree requiring any party to do an act thereby ordered, shall state the time or the time after service of the decree or order within which the act is to be done; and that upon the copy of the order or decree, which shall be served upon the party required to obey the same, there shall be indorsed a memorandum in the words or to the effect following, viz. :-'If you, the within-named A. B., neglect

1 For. Rom. 166.

By the 8th Equity Rule of the United States Courts, "Final process to execute any decree may, if the decree be solely for the payment of money, be by a writ of execution, in the form used in the Circuit Court in suits at Common Law in actions of assumpsit." An additional rule made April 18, 1864, provides that in suits in Equity for the foreclosure of mortgages in the Circuit Courts of the United States, or in any of the Courts of the Territories having jurisdiction of the same, a decree may be rendered for any balance that may be found due to the plaintiff over and above the proceeds of the sale or sales, and execution may issue for the collection of the same, as is provided in the eighth rule above stated, where the decree is solely for the payment of money. 1 Wallace (U. S.) Rep. Before this last rule, execution could not issue in such a case. Orchard v. Hughes, 1 Wallace (U. S.) 73; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black (U. S.) 499.