Term 1821, and further revived in Michaelmas Term 1840 against the heir and terretenants of each conuzor; an annuity deed of the 11th of June 1819 charged the lands of the conuzor's with a yearly annuity of £225 per annum; and the judgments were not revived or redocketed within five years after the passing of 9 G. 4, c. 35 (Moore's Act). Held, per Blackburne, C. J., and Crampton, J., that the judgments were null and void against the parties entitled under the annuity deed, by reason of the same not having been revived or redocketed, and such revival or redocketing entered pursuant to the provisions of 9 G. 4, c. 35. Held, per Burton, J. and Perrin, J., that the judgments were not null and void against the parties entitled to the annuity. Q. B. Colyer v. Marnell

PRIVILEGE.

353

2. The officers of the Court of Queen's Bench have no general privilege of exemption from arrest on final process. Their privilege only extends to the periods during which they are going, returning from, or engaged in their official duties. Q. B. Magrath v. Cooper 332

3. A person who is summoned from a distant part of the country to attend before a Master in Chancery, is privileged from arrest upon civil process, not merely while attending at the Master's Chambers, and going to and returning therefrom, but also during his stay in town in pursuance of the summons. L.E. Rooney v. Cooke 469 4. Where in such case a party is arrested, he may be discharged either by the Court of Chancery, or by the

Court out of which the process issued upon which he is arrested. Rooney v. Cooke

PRIVITY OF ESTATE. See PLEADING, 8, 10.

PROBABLE CAUSE. See COSTS, 6, 7.

MALICIOUS ARREST.

PROMISE.

See PLEADING, 13.

PROMISSORY NOTE. See PLEADING, 42.

PROVISO.

See JUDGMENT AS IN CASE OF NONSUIT, 2.

PUBLIC OFFICER. See PLEADING, 44.

QUARE IMPEDIT.

See PLEADING, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39.

QUARRIES.

See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 2.

QUEEN'S BENCH, OFFICER OF. See PRIVILEGE, 2.

QUO WARRANTO. Quare-Would a quo warranto information be maintainable for the office of borough weighmaster appointed under the 4 Anne, c. 14, within the statutes 19 G. 2, c. 12, and 38 G. 3, c. 2? L. E. Honan v. Vereker 64

RAILWAY COMPANY.
See EVIDENCE, 12.

LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDA-
TION ACT.
PLEADING, 44.

The Recorder of Dublin is one of the Board of Magistrates of the county of the city of Dublin, within the meaning of the 49 G. 3, c. 20, s. 3; and therefore ought to have been convened or summoned by the Lord Mayor to attend an election held on the 21st of February 1839, for the treasurership of the county of the city of Dublin; and not having been convened or summoned as aforesaid, and not having attended at the said election-Held, that the said election was void; dissentientibus Lefroy, B., Richards, B., Crampton, J., and Burton, J. Ex. Cham. Darley in Error V. Smyth 376

REVOCATION.

See PLEADING, 14, 15.

As to a possible distinction between revocation upon citation, and revocation upon appeal-Quære? C. P. Bevan v. Lloyd 228

SCIRE FACIAS. See PLEADING, 14, 15, 16.

SECURITY.

See ASSIGNABLE SECURITIES. VOID SECURITIES.

SEQUESTRATION.

1. A judgment creditor, who had obtained the sequestration of a benefice, is entitled to be paid the fruits of his execution, in priority to the claim of the debtor's successor in the benefice, for the value of dilapidations found under a commission of dilapidation. Q. B. Casey v. Horner 221

2. Baker v. Swayne (1 J. & Car.) is not law. Ibid 3. The Court granted a writ of sequestration to the Bishop, without a writ of fi. fa. having been first issued by the plaintiff, and a return thereto obtained; where it appeared by the records of the Court, that the Sheriff, to whom such writ, if issued, must have gone, had recently returned nulla bona to a fi. fa., sued out of this Court against the defendant, by another creditor. L. E. Smyth v. Armstrong

447

4. Where a sequestrator has been ordered to account in this Court for the sums which he has received, he ought not, pending the confirmation of the Master's report, to pay over to the Bishop the money in his hands; and if he does, the Court will, notwithstanding such payment, compel him to bring in the amount. L. E. Galbraith v. Pilkington 473

SERGEANT-AT-MACE. See INTERPLEADER.

SERVICE, SUBSTITUTION OF.

1. In an action of covenant upon a mortgage deed against T. H. and his son T. G. H., as co-covenantors, a writ of capias ad respondendum was served upon the son, and at the same time a copy left with him for his father, who was then out of the jurisdiction, and a copy was also left at the residence of the latter. T. H. shortly after proposed to the plaintiff's attorney an arrangement of the debt, and admitted the service of the writ upon his son. The Court refused to hold the above service good service of T. H., or to grant an order to substitute service on him by serving his attorney in a pending Equity suit. L. E. Fowler v. Hemsworth 77

2. This Court will substitute service on the agent resident in Dublin of an English Insurance Company. Q. B. O'Brien v. Insurance Company 183 3. Service upon one of two co-partners and co-defendants deemed good service upon the other, who was absent in England. C. P. Heydon v. Hammond 268

SETTING ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. 1. The defendants, and one A. L., being on the 1st of May 1846 jointly indebted to the plaintiff in £37. 7s. 9d., being a year's rent (payable quarterly) and tithe rent-charge due up to that day, plaintiff's attorney, on the 2nd of June, issued a capias against the defendants, returnable on the 6th, and endorsed for £100 debt, and £3. 10s. costs; and on the 31st of October, no steps having been in the meantime taken, refused to receive less than a year and a quarter's rent, and demanded the costs of drawing and engrossing a declaration, and fee to Counsel therewith, in addition to the costs of the writ. The defendants, on the 2nd of November, lodged the year's rent in bank to plaintiff's credit, and showed the bank receipt to plaintiff's attorney, who still demanded the same sum for costs, and in

SETTING ASIDE, &c.

default of payment entered a parliamentary appearance, and proceeded thereon to execution and sale; and like steps in the Queen's Bench against A. L. The Court set aside the parliamentary and all subsequent proceedings, with costs. The costs of the motion to be paid by the plaintiff's attorney; the defendants undertaking to pay the costs of the writ and service thereof; leave being reserved to the plaintiff to apply to restrain the bringing of an action by the defendants for the seizure and levy. L. E. Evatt v. Livingston

2. By the notice at foot of the copy a writ of capias ad respondendum served, the defendant was directed to appear at the return thereof, being "the day of May next," the plaintiff having, notwithstanding notice of the irregularity, entered a parliamentary appearance, and proceeded thereon to judgment. The Court set aside the appearance and all subsequent proceedings. L. E. Birch v. Shaw 107

3. Quære. Was the omission of the date an irregularity, or did it render the proceedings a nullity? Ibid 4. After a writ of inquiry had been sped, and damages had been assessed, in an action against the stewards of a race, for the amount of the stakes; the Court set aside the parliamentary appearance, and proceedings, upon lodgment of the amount in Court, and payment of costs; where the defendant, having been served with the writ as he was about to go abroad, forgot to instruct his attorney, and there was an affidavit of merits. L. E. Quin v. Arthure

5. Where a declaration was entitled as of a Term subsequent to the Term of the defendants' appearance, in order to include a cause of action which accrued since the entry of the appearance, the Court set aside the declaration with costs, and refused to allow it to be amended. L. E. Hinds v. Shannons 458

1. In an action against a Sheriff, where the first count of the declaration stated the recovery of a judgment by the plaintiffs, the issuing of a fieri facias thereon, the delivery of it to the Sheriff, and that he seized thereunder the goods of the debtor, and levied the amount; and averred as a breach, that he had not the money so levied in Court, on the return of the writ, nor had paid the same to the plaintiffs, and that he falsely returned nulla bona; and the second count, after stating the recovery of the judgment, the issuing of the fieri facias, and the delivery of it to the Sheriff, averred, that although there were before the return of this writ goods of the debtor in the defendant's bailiwick, whereof he ought to have levied the money endorsed on the writ, and assigned as a breach, that he would not levy the money, and returned nulla bona. Held, that supposing the false return to be an essential part of the evidence, in such