81. The Court will not interfere with the Master's appointment of a consignee unless upon special grounds and a Bowersbank v. Colasseau. (See Nos. 50.

strong case.

63.91.93.)

82. A single witness cannot prevail against a positive denial by the Answer. Lord Cranstown v. Johnston.

83. Exception over-ruled with costs. Burnaby v. Griffin.
84. The bill praying an inquiry into the title and a specific

performance, on the defendant's motion after answer an
inquiry was directed as to the title; at what time the
abstract was delivered; and whether it was sufficient:
but the Court would not decide upon any matter of re-
lief. Moss v. Matthews.
85. Relief against forfeiture of the deposit upon putting the
other party in the same situation, as if the contract had
been performed at the time agreed. Moss v. Matthews.
86. A married woman, living in America, being entitled to a
legacy, a Commission to examine her would have been
directed; but, as she had been examined under a Com-
mission issued by the American Government, that was
considered sufficient. Campbell v. French.

87. Where there is only one defendant, after all the process
of contempt for want of an answer the bill may be
ordered to be taken pro confesso upon motion. Sea-
grave v. Edwards.
88. The Court cannot decree against a title in the Crown,
apparent on the Record; though not insisted on at the
hearing. Barclay v. Russell.

Vol. Page

III. 164

III. 170

III. 266

III. 279

III. 279

III. 321

III. 372

III. 424

89. A Court of Law could not give judgment against the title of the Crown, appearing on the record.

III. 436

90. Defendant, in confinement under sentence for felony, cannot be brought up by Habeas corpus upon an Attachment for want of an Answer. Rogers v. Kirkpatrick. III. 471. 573

91. The Court will not control the Master's appointment of a Receiver without a special case. Anonymous. (See

Nos. 50. 63. 81.)

III. 515

92. Defendant on motion ordered to pay in a balance, ascertained by the Report. Gordon v. Rothley.

III. 572

93. Exception to the Master's appointment of a Receiver
disallowed. Wilkins v. Williams. (See Nos. 50. 63.
81. 91.)
94. Under the Order 18th June, 1668, regulating the office
of the Six Clerks, they are entitled to receive their pro-
portion of the fee from the Sworn Clerk, though he has
given credit to the client. Ex parte The Six Clerks.
95. After a decree the Master may examine witnesses; but
ought not to do so by his clerk: the same subpoena
issues as to bring them before the Examiner; which is
the same as a subpoena to answer, but the label ex-
presses the purpose; upon an examination in the coun-
try the body of the writ expresses, that it is to testify.
Parkinson v. Ingram.

III. 588

III. 589

III. 603

96. The decrees in the Exchequer always express, that the officer is to be armed with a Commission to examinə witnesses, and power to direct the same to the country; so formerly in Chancery.

97. After a decree, if the Master see cause for a Commission to examine witnesses in the country, he certifies, that it is necessary; and the depositions, when returned, are filed by the Six Clerks: but depositions taken before the Master are kept in their offices.

98. Subpæna not necessary to an amended bill.

V.

Skeffington

the

99. Upon an injunction bill to stay proceedings at law,
defendant living abroad, a motion, that service of sub-
pœna upon the attorney may be good service, requires
an affidavit of merits. Stephen v. Cini.

100. By the insolvency of the plaintiff pending an account the
suit is abated. Williams v. Kinder.
101. Quære, whether notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the
plaintiff at law the action may not proceed, the as-
signees giving security for the costs. Williams v. Kinder.
102. A decree cannot be impeached_collaterally in another
cause. Lady Clinton v. Lord Robert Seymour.
103. After an order, confirming the Report nisi, filing Excep-
tions and making the deposit with the Register are no
cause to prevent that order being made absolute; unless
an order for setting down the Exceptions to be argued
is obtained; which may be done either by the plaintiff
or defendant. The order, confirming the Report, was
discharged on payment of two guineas costs. Gildart
v. Moss.
104. Where the bill is amended after Answer, if the amended
bill is not answered, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree,
that the bill be taken pro confesso generally. Jopling

v. Stuart.

105. An insufficient Answer is no Answer; and therefore shall not prevent a decree to take the Bill pro confesso. Turner v. Turner.

106. Bill amended after Answer may be taken pro confesso generally, not as to the amendments only; the Record being entire. Bacon v. Griffith.

107. Bill by a legatee very nearly of age to secure the legacy :
the costs were given out of the estate: but that will not
be done in future upon a bill to secure the legacy of an
infant: as under the Legacy Act, 36 Geo. 3. c. 51. s.32,
the executor may pay the legacy into Court; and the
legatee, when of age, may petition for it. Whopham
v. Wingfield.
108. This Court will not before a decree interpose in favour of
an executor against a creditor, proceeding at law. Rush
v. Higgs.

109. A work, alleged to be a piracy, referred to the Master.

v. Leadbetter.

Vol. Page

III. 607

III. 607

IV. 66

IV. 359

IV. 387

IV. 387

IV. 440

IV. 617

IV. 619

IV. 619, n.

IV. 619, n.

IV. 630

IV. 638

IV. 681

110. A detainer, before the defendant could be discharged
from an illegal arrest, as where he was returning from
his examination under a Commission of bankruptcy
against him, cannot be supported. Ex parte Hawkins.
111. Bidding opened on advance of £50, on £380, paying the
expense. £10 per cent. not sufficient on a small sum.
Upton v. Lord Ferrers.

112. Outlawry is at this day the common process in Ireland.
113. Plaintiff pays the costs upon a bill of discovery.
114. Upon a question as to the amount of a legacy from a
doubt as to a figure, an Issue was directed instead of a
reference to the Master. Norman v. Morrell.
115. The Court of King's Bench refused to answer a case
from the Rolls, stated as a trust. Bayley v. Morris.
(See No. 136.)

116. The Master of the Rolls refused to make an order under the statute 5 Geo. 2. c. 2, for the purpose of having the bill taken pro confesso, without an affidavit, according to the 8th section, that defendant had been in England within two years before the subpoena issued. Neale v. Norris. (See Nos. 65. 121.)

117. Plaintiff in his return from attending a motion against
him in the cause was arrested; and a detainer was
lodged against him in another action: he was discharged
from both the Court examining the parties personally,
not by affidavit. Bromley v. Holland.
118. Admission, that there is standing in the names of the ex-
ecutors upon
the trusts of the Will a considerable sum
in the 3 per cents. and offering an appropriation, was
held sufficient to entitle the plaintiff, a contingent le-
gatee, to move for that purpose; and by consent the
order was made, as upon admission of assets sufficient
to satisfy the plaintiff's demand, to transfer, &c. Pullen
v. Smith.
119. Biddings opened after the Report confirmed simply upon
an advance of £61 on £305: £35 not sufficient. Che-
tham v. Grugeon.

120. Plaintiff in a bill for discovery only is not entitled as of course to two Terms to except to the answer filed in the Vacation. Hewart v. Semple.

121. To obtain an order for taking the bill pro confesso under the statute 5 Geo. 2. c. 25, the affidavit must state, that the defendant has been in England within two years before the subpoena. Bishop of Winchester v. Beavor. (See Nos. 65. 116.)

122. Service of an order of Sequestration, nisi, upon the
Clerk in Court good; the plaintiff having tried in vain
to serve it personally. Marquis of Lothian v. Gar-
forth.
123. Injunction in pressing cases upon petition and affidavit.
In this instance, converting old houses in London to a

Vol. Page

IV. 691

IV. 700

IV. 738

IV. 742

IV. 769

IV. 788

V. 1

V. 2

V. 21

V. 86

V. 86

V. 113

V. 115

purpose, that made them dangerous to the public, the Lord Chancellor granted the Injunction; but said, the Lord Mayor by his general jurisdiction could apply a much more proper and effectual remedy. The Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of London v. Bolt. 124. Service on the defendant's wife ordered to be deemed personal service on the defendant; and upon that service ordered, that he stand committed for breach of Injunction. Sir William Pulteney v. Shelton. 125. Service by sending a subpoena to the defendant under cover to the person, to whom he had directed his letters to be sent, ordered to be good service. Hunt v. Lever. 126. Biddings opened on advance of £200 upon £3200: but £100 was held too little. Anonymous.

Vol. Page

V. 129

V. 147. 260, n.

127. Under a decree for payment of debts out of cash in the Bank, the Accountant-General was ordered to pay the executor of a creditor by simple contract under a probate in the diocese, where he had resided: without a prerogative probate: the sum being small; and no bona notabilia out of that diocese (a). Sweet v. Partridge.

128. Motion to amend depositions after publication refused. Ingram v. Mitchell.

129. The defendant dying after service of the subpœna to hear judgment, whether upon a bill of revivor a new subpoena to hear judgment is necessary, quære. Byne v. Potter.

130. When an Appeal is abated in the House of Lords, the order to revive is obtained of course; and there is no fresh summons.

V. 147

V. 148

V. 148

V. 297

V. 305

V. 305

131. The Master may proceed de die in diem without an order. Sturdy v. Lingham (b).

V. 423

132. Plaintiff may except to the Report, and at the same time

set down the cause for farther directions. Yeo v. Frere.
Bowerbank v. Collasseau.

V. 424

V. 509

133. A re-hearing is the proper mode of impeaching a decree,
not signed and enrolled, for error. Bolger v. Mackell.
184. Bill by a former churchwarden against the parish officers,
trustees of an estate for the poor of the parish, and
forty inhabitants, to be re-imbursed money laid out on
account of the trust, under an order of vestry; his ac-
counts being passed, and an order made for payment.
Upon demurrer the Lord Chancellor expressed a strong
opinion against such a bill; and, as it appeared not to
be signed by Counsel, ordered it to be taken off the file,
and the plaintiff to pay the costs. French v. Dear.
135. On motion at the last Seal after Trinity Term, to make
absolute an order to dissolve an Injunction nisi, the
plaintiff cannot have time till the next day of motions

(a) Over-ruled; see the note, Vol. V. page 148.
(b) Over-ruled; see the note, Vol. V. page 423.

V. 547

upon the usual undertaking to shew cause on the merits;

but was permitted to shew cause during the petitions.
Robinson v. Walcott.

136. The Court of King's Bench refused to answer a case from
the Rolls, stated as a trust. Parsons v. Parsons. (See

No. 115.)

137. Biddings opened for a person, who was present at the sale. Tait v. Lord Northwick.

138. After an order for time to answer the bill may be referred for scandal, but not for impertinence. Anonymous.

139. Upon a motion for a commission to take defendant's examination the time is left to the Master; not limited by the order. Hairby v. Emmett.

140. The simple fact, that the plaintiff is gone abroad, is not
a sufficient ground to compel him to give security for
costs. Hoby v. Hitchcock.

141. Demurrer allowed in the Exchequer upon argument
with 30s. costs. In another suit, in Chancery, between
the same parties and to the same effect it was ordered
on motion, that the defendant should have time to an-
swer till payment of those costs, but without prejudice
to an application to dismiss the bill. Holbrooke v. Cra-
craft.
142. Appeal to the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster
from a decree of the Vice Chancellor, dismissing the
bill, affirmed by him on a re-hearing on the petition of
the plaintiff. Omerod v. Hardman.

143. Bill for specific performance of a contract for sale of an estate upon various objections to the title dismissed in the first instance without a reference (a). Omerod v. Hardman.

144. Relief, not specifically prayed, within the general relief.
145. In equity against the answer there can be no decree upon
the testimony of a single witness, unless supported by
special circumstances.

146. Order upon the Register of the Consistory Court, that
an original Will may be produced for the hearing upon
giving security. Hodson v. (See No. 178.)
147. After two answers reported insufficient the defendant is
not entitled to six weeks time to answer. Gregor v.
Lord Arundel.

Vol. Page

V. 552

V. 578

V. 655

V. 656

V. 683

V. 699

V. 706, n.

V. 722

V. 722

V. 495

VI. 40

VI. 135

VI. 144

148. Order to strike out the names of two of the plaintiffs on giving security for costs made without consent. Lloyd v. Makeam.

VI. 145

149. Notice of motion on Saturday must be given for Tuesday, not Monday. Maxwell v. Phillips.

150. Order, that service of subpoena to answer the amended bill upon the Clerk in Court or Solicitor may be good service, upon the special circumstances; that, though the defendant had not been served with a subpoena, he

(a) See the notes, Vol. V. pages 188. 737.

VI. 146