Matter before them was only the Irregularity of this Scire facias ; and
clearly it is fo, becaufe there is no Judgment on Record to found it up-
on. Accordingly the Judgment ou the Scire facias was fet afide. Bar-
nard Rep. in B. R. 133, 134. Hill. 2 Geo. 2. 1728. Dale v. Rufted, cites
5 Mod. 88.
(H) Returns good. In Refpect of the timet
1. IN Scire againft the Bail, it was agreed by the Court and Clerks^
Jk that by the Courfe of the Court there ought to be 14 Days between
the T'e/te of the iji Scire facias, and the Return r,j the 2d, (viz.) 7 Days be*
tiveen the Telle and Return of 'each, and that the Scire facias ought to be
4 Days at leafl in the Hands of the Sheriff before the Return thereof ; but in
the Principal Caie, the Return of the Jirjl Writ being Die Sabbati poji
Craft. Animariwi, between which Day and the Return of the 2d VVrit
there were not 7 Days, the Court declared they were not obliged tocon-
i'ult the Almanack to know it; for it may be that 7 Days in fome Year
may be between them, and that to retard Execution this lhall not be in-
quired ; but if before the Return of the 2d Scire facias it had been
moved toihew the Truth, the Court would have the Regularity there-
of examined. And in this Cafe the Plea of the Defendant, that the
Principal died before any Scire facias ilfued againft the Bail, was held
fo infufficient that the Defendant's Counfel did not offer to maintain it ;
And Judgment was given for the Plaintiff. 2 Jo. 228. Mich. 34 Car. 2.
B. R. Levingfton v. Stoner.
2. After a Writ of Error brought on a Judgment in C. B. there was a Itbeingob-
Sci. fac. T'e/fe zttNovemb. returnable Die Veneris proxime poft Oclab. SancJi je^ed that a
Htllarii ubicunque tunc fuerimus in Anglia, to ihew Caufe &uare Ex- c j ~! as
"11 <-r* i-i.Lixi.-j j j^i- grounded
ecutionem non haberet ; . I o which the Defendant demurred, and it was „*„„ a j H d%-
held, That fuch Writs of Sci. fac. were made returnable fometimes at a mentin an'
Day certain, and fometimes upon common Days ; but that this Writ re- ^jpfe, which
turnable on a Day certain Ubicunque &c. was naught, for it ought to ls t n J&~.
be returnable on a Common Day, if it be Coram nobis ubicunque &c. 3 Salk. have been
320. pi. 4. Hill. 2 & 3 W.& M. inC. B. Manning v. Bois. returnable
ubicunque,
whereas this was returnable at a Day certain, Holt Ch, J. faid, it is good the one Way or the other
Judgment for the Plaintiff. 2 Ld Raym. Rep. 855. 854. Pafch. a Ann. Welt. v. Sutton.
e
was
en out
3 It was adjudged that in a Scire facias it is fufficient that there be Carth. 46S.
15 Days incluftvc between the 'Tefte of the Writ of the firft Scire facias, and *,&&*
the Return of the fecond. 12 Mod. 215. Mich. 10W. 3. Goodwin V.^a^
Beakbane. and ufted
OHob. 24.
returnable 5 1 OH. and an Jlias Scire facias was taken out 7"fJ}e on the 3 \(l of OH. (the Day of Return
of the firft Writ) returnable 7 Nov. It was objected that thcie were not 1 5 Days exclusive of the very
Daysof the Tette and Return ; But the whole Court held the Writs good ; For there are 8 Davs be-
tween the Telte and Return of each, and the fecond Writ mult bear Tefte on the Day whereon the
firft was returnable, and confequently that Day muft be reckoned twice. Belides, no Manner of Ob-
jection can be made to the Writs fingly ; fo that if each is good as it Hands alone, the Putting them to-
gether
2b 8 Scire facias.
gcther fhall not make [hem Irregular by a Joint Computation of Time, and Judgment for the Plain,-
tilt z Salk. 599 pi. ;. S C by the Name of Goodwin v. Peek accordingly, and fays the Prac-
rifcri agreed it tobc lo • Corny m's Rep. 53. pi. 35. Goodwin v Bearbank S. C. accordingly.
4. Tzvo Scire facias's were taken out at one and the fame Time with the
fame Tefte, and one returnable jQuindeh' Hill, and the other Crajfino Purif
Per. Cur. tho' there were different Returns, and at a convenient Dilfance,
yet it was wrong, becaufe the Defendant by this Means would lofe the
Benefit of 2 Scire facias's which the Law gives him. 6 Mod. 86. Mich.
2 Ann. B. R. Jevon v. Turner.
' 5. It was moved to quafh a Scire facias Jdriare Executionem non &c.
fucd by the Defendant in Error to make the Plaintiff affign his Errors 1
becaufe the Original Suit in C. B. was by Bill of Privilege , and the Scire fa-
cias therefore ought to be returnable at a Day certain, but this was made
returnable upon a Common Return. And cf that Opinion was the Court,
becaule Scire facias's ought to be made returnable according to the Na-
ture of the Original Suit below in C. B. and Trin. n Ann. between
aXIUifOr atlO JparfeCr, >t was adjudged fo by the Court of B. R. in the
very fame Cafe. And the Writ of Error was quafhed. 2 Ld. Raym.
Rep. 141. Eafter i2Geo. B.R. Eden v. Wills.
( I ) Return. Good. And Peremptory , in what Cafes.
S
C I R E facias again/l two, of certain Land, the Sheriff 1 ' returned
the one warn'd, and the other Nihil 3 and the Plaintiff pray'd Exe-
cution at his Peril againlt him who is return'd Nihil. Per Shard, You
fhall have Execution at your Peril upon fuch Return in Scire facias
upon Debt or Trefpafs, Contra in Scire facias upon Franktaiement 3 For
there he may be warned in the Land of which Execution is fued, by
which [he awarded him to] fue Writ to warn the other, quod nota.
Br. Scire facias, pi. 124. cites 24 E. 3. 25.
2. Scire facias was returned by J. N. and W. S. and did not fay Probos
& legales Homines 3 and the Defendant appeared and took Exception, Ec
non allocatur. Br. Procefs, pi. 59. cites 8 H. 6. 27.
3. In Audita Querela again ft tiro, where the one has releafed, and both
fue Execution and Scire facias thereupon, and at the Day the one of the
Conufees makes Default, this is the Default of both, and the Plaintiff fhall
recover Damages. Br. Scire facias, pi. 183. cites 11 E.4. 8. and ciccs
tit. Damages 125. That by the firit Return of Scire facias the Plaintiff
fhall have Judgment, and fo always upon Scire feci return'd as it feems,
but otherwile it is of Nihil 3 For fometimes there fhall be 2 Nihils, and
fometimes but one Nihil. Br. Scire facias, pi. 183.
itwasmov'd 4. A Scire facias upon a Record in B.R. where the All ion is brought by
to make a Original, mult alledge a Place where the Court was held, becaufe it is am-
Rule abfo- b u i ator y } arK i the Writs returnable there, are Coram nobis ubicunque
quaih?n<»a l ^ nc fuerimus cvc. but 'tis otherwife upon Records in C. B. becaule that
Scire facias Court is confined to a certain Place by Magna Charta. Vent. 46. Mich.
tQwitea 21 Car.2. B. R. Glinn v. Smith.
Judgment, .....
The Exception took to it was, That it was relmnabW Cor/imnolis, without faying utAcunqtK, or fo much
as atuAWettm. The Court laid, They thought the Coram nobis might fupply the Ubicunque; but not the
other Fault, and accordingly made the Rule abfolute. Barnard. Rep. in B. R. 32;. Pafch. 3 Geo. 2.
i-~o. Bayncs v. Forcft. cites Sid. 80. 81. 1 Vcn. 46.
For more of Scire facias in General, See Xflfl, CrCCttttOtl, JiHtCiS,
ISrerOljatruC, Rerciffr, and other Proper Titles.
Scrivener,
_JL
289
Scrivener.
(A) How confider'd, and Cafes relating to their Tran-
iacrions in their Bufineis.
i. ^Crivener is not a Profeflion offncb T.ftimation in Law as to main=
^3 tain an Aftion on fuch Words faid of him ds of an Attorney &c.
Agreed by all. 2 Roll. Rep. 92. Trin. 17 Jac. B. R. in the Cafe of
Brett v. Trevillian.
2. One Glover [a Scrivener] having the Putting out of the Defen-
dant's Money, to whom the Plaintiff paid the Money again at the Day;
becaufe the Money was not paid to the Defendant, and the Scrivener
breaking, the Defendant puts the Bond in Suit ; Ordered to cancel the Bond.
Toth. 273. cites Huet v. Dela Fontaine. Hill. 2oJac. li. B. fol. 464.
3. Nota, Per Keeling Ch. J. et Curiam, That if onetrufls a Scrivener
to take Security^ and he alter rei'ufes to deliver it up, and receives the Mo-
ney, he does it without Warrant ; and it he dies the Creditor may fuethe
Obligor, aiter the Death of the Scrivener; Ex Motiohe Finch, tofetalide
Warrant of Attorney, lb obtained by one Yarway. 2 Keb. 249. pi. 25.
Trin. 19 Car. 2. B. R. Hicks v. Loging.
4. One had carried Writings to one P. a Scrivener, and among them was Vent sfi.
a Deed which mainly concerned the Houfe P. lived in ; he re-delivered all , r* c ~,
the other Writings ; but as t'o that, he faid, He held his Houfe by it&c. but there'
But Per Cur. he being one over whom they had a Power as a Maker of the Deeds
Deeds &c. would not let him keep what he was intrujred with in the Way a . rc me n-
ofhis Profeflion) but made him put the Party in the fame Condition as he c°a j • t .° K bc
was at firit, and then he might recover the Deed by Law. Skin. 1. cites f 01 . e c oup !~
Mich. 21 Car. 2. B. R. Parry's Cafe: fcl, and by
him deliver-
ed to a Scrivener by Content of the Parties* and that the Deed not delivered back concerned a 3d Pet-
5. So likewife was it done in Ld. Ch. J. Hale's Time in a Cafe of the
like Nature. Skin. 1. cites Doble's Cale.
6. A. poffcfs'd of certain valuable Goods, put them into the Hands of B. an
Upholjferer, to fell them for him, but wanting Money applied to C. a Scri-
vener to lend him 500 /. on the Goods, which C. did upon B.'s informing
himof the Value of them. After A. borrowed 100 I. more, and gave a
Judgment alfo for the Debt with Interefi, the Goods being Jl til in B^s Hands.
B. fold the Goods at an Undervalue, but whether with the Privity of C. or
D. (whofe Money it was fuppofed to be) did not appear. But A. being
dead, B. delired J. S. the Executor of A. to fell them, which he refufed to
do unlefs he might firit fee them, which he could not. The Securities
were made in D.'s Name, but he did not appear in the tranfa£ting the
Affair. The Securities were always in Os Cujlody, and by him delivered to
J. S. whopaid C. the Money fecured. But the Goods being fold J. S. could
not have them, and therefore fued B. C. and D. to have the Goods or
the Value, which was found to be 800 1. And Ld. Chancellor decreed
the Defendants to pay the Money ; and held, That B. became Truftee
for C. and that C. is anfwerable tor B. who fold them, and that as to C.
and D. they are to be looked upon to be as one Perfon as to the Plaintiff in
Cafe. 2 Chan. Cafes 226, 227. Hill. 28 & 29 Car. 2. Perkins v. Avery;,
Brown, and Baker.
4 E Scrivener
290
Scrivener.
A Bill was 7. Scrivener is not privileged againjt Examination oi what came to his
brought to Knowledge as Scrivener, and his Demurrer was ovcr-rul'd, and decreed
'I,- toanfwer as to what Conveyances himielr made. Chan. Cafes 242. 243.
Deeds or k- ■> . , , . • >•>
vera! Lands, Hill. 29 & 30 Car. 2. Atterbury v. Hawkins &c.
and whether .
they were not made in 7iw/?, andv/hetler the Debt demanded by the Plaintiff, aw w< mentioned in a Sche-
dule thereunto annexed, 'l'hc Defendant 'leaded, That he was a Scrivener by Profeflion, and bath taken
tie acciificmed Oath that Scriveners do before they are made free in London, whereby he is obliged net to
difevuer the Secrets of'thcfe Perfons Bufinefs that ti .;.' | him in that Trade without their Leave ; andthat he
was employed by and addled Sir J. Langham id the Purchafing of the faid Lands, and that he drew the
â– W ritin<'s concerning the Premiffes, and has the Keeping thereefby the laid Sir John's Direction, and
fo ought not to difcover the faid Writings, contrary to his Trulr, nor any Thing relating to this Mat-
ter. The Court declared that the Oath of a Scrivener does not oblige from a Discovery, more than the
Oath of any other Kreeman of London. And if it had been in the Cafe of a Counsellor at Law, the faid
Plea had been infurneient in this Cafe ; and over-ruled the Plea, laving he is not to anlwer to whom he
paid the Purchafe Money. 2 Chan Rep. 29, 30. 21 Car. 2. fol. 560. Shalmer v. TreJharn.
An Attorney having drawn an Agreement between a Sheriff and his Under-Sheriff, and being pi-o-
ducedat Nil! Prius, to prove a Corrupt Agreement between them, he was not compelled to dileover the
Matter, tho' he was not a Couniellor ; And Holt Cb. f. laid the Law feemed to be the fame of a Scri-:
vener. And he cited a Cafe where, upon a Covenant to convey as Counfcl fhall adviie, and Confiliuin
non dedit advifamenturn being pleaded, Conveyances made by the Advice ofa Scrivener, being tendcr'd
and refilled, was allowed to be gi od Evidence upon this Iflue ; for He is a Counfcl to a M.;>:, who will
advife with him if he be inftrucred and educated infuch IVayoj Practice; otherwile ofa Gentleman, Par-
ion &c. Skin 4.4. pi 40. Mich. 5 W'.ccM. B. R. Ano.i
Sec pi 4 8. A. bought Lauds of B. and had PolTeilion, and the Evidences deli-
ycrcd him, which he carried to C. for Advice. C. pretends the Covenants
were too general, but after buys the Laud himfelf A. who was the firit
Purchafor, moved, That C. might redeliver to him the Writings he had
of him, and put him in the fame Polture he was. Vide Skin. 1. Mich.
33 Car. 2. B. R. Davy v. Tiack. _
9. A. the Father of B. the Plaintiff, applied himfelf to the Defend-
ant, Gierke, a Scnvcnr-r, to borrow 200 1. and upon the Lending thereof
B. was bound as Surety for A. his Father, in 2 Bonds, for the Payment
of it, viz.. in one Eond to E. and in another to F. the Money belonging
to them. Clerke had the Ordering and difpojing of the Monies, and front
Tune to Ttme received the Intereft due upon the Bonds. Afterwards A. be-
came infblvent ; and by reafbn of the Debts for which B. ltood engaged
for his Father, B. failed like wife. A. having compounded with h:s other
Creditors for 7 s. in the Pound, he and B. applied to Clerke to know-
where E. & F. lived ; who only told them, That they need not go to
them, but that what Agreement they made with him E. & P. would
itand to ; Upon which they agreed with him for 10 s. in the Pound, 70 1.
to be paid immediately ; which was done, and 30 1. in a fhort Time,
which was tendered. B. the Plaintiff, brought his Bill againlt E. and
Clerke to have the Bonds delivered up to be cancelled, or that he may
be indemnified againlt them. The Court decreed the Plaintiff to pay E.
what was due for Principal, Interelt, and Colts ; and Clerke to repay
what B. lhould lb pay to E. and to indemnity the Plaintiff according to
his Agreement. 2 Vera 127. pi. 126. Hill. 1690. Parrot v. Wells and
Clerke.
10. Scrivener lends 100 1, of A.' s Money to B. and takes Bond and War-
rant of Attorney to confefs Judgment in A.'s Name, and keeps the Bond,
but gives A. the Copy of the Judgment, and after receives the Money,
and delivers up the Bond, Whether B. muft pay the Money over again ?
Quaere. 2 Vern. 265. pi. 250. Pafch. 1692. Stafford v. South wick.
1 1. A Bond tor 1400 1. was enter d into to B. a Scrivener, in 'Tru/lfor A.
the Plaintiff. B having Occalion lor Money, without the Privity of A.
borrows it of f.S. and ajfigns this Bond to J. S. for Security, J. S. ha\ ing
no Notice of the -Trufi, and there being nothing of the Truit appearing by
the Bond : And the (Tueftion was, Whjdh ot them lhould have the Be-
nefic
Scrivener. 291
nefic of cbe Bond ? It was agreed, That if.it bad been a Mortgage, and
it had been ajjigned to J. S. without Notice of the Trull, that J. S. ibould
have had it, becaufe there a legal Eihue had been veiled in him without
Notice ; But this Cafe, as was inlilted, differed from that ; becaufe, by
the Alignment of a Bond nothing palies at Law but an Equitable
Right, which is rebutted by the prior Equity in A. And fo it was faidj
It was held in the Cafe of Sir (£3UiarQ SlbnCl>, by the Lord Chancellor.
But the Mailer of the Rolls was of Opinion in this Cafe, That J. S.
ihould have it; But Sir Edward Abney's Cafe being cited to be in the
very Point, he delired to fee that Cafe before he would give any Opi-
nion. Hefaid, It is a Handing Rule here, That if I trull a Scrivener
with my Bond, and the Obligor pays him the Money and takes up the
Bond, that I flail have no Remedy againll the Obligor; But if the Obli-
gor compounds with the Scrivener for lejs than is due, it is an Evidence of
Fraud ; and then, it may be, the Obligor may pay the Money again. 2
Freem. Rep. 214,215. pi. 287. Pafch. 1697. in Curia Caneellarke. Penn
v. Brown & al'
12. If a Scrivener or an Attorney, with whom Money is lodged to A. depoflted
be placed out on Security generally, puts out his Client's Money without 3°°.l- m &• *
the Privity of his Client, upon a defetlive Security, and which he might Hand^B ' $
ealily have informed himlelt to have been fo, yet Ld. Keeper Wright placed' the
laid, Tho' he did not think their fo doing is altogether agreeable to fame out in
what, in natural Jullice they ought to have done, yet there was n o A -' sName -
Foundation to charge them in Equity : And difmiffed the Bill with Cofls. ^â„¢1>S'
And this Decree was afterwards affirmed in the Houie of Lords. Chan. pnveTde-
Free. 146. Hill. 1700. Luke v. Bridges and Chriity. feffhe. A.
for many
Years received the Intereft. It did not appear whether A. ever ajfented to this Mortgage, or that he gave
B. a general Authority to place it out at Intereft as B. thought fit, or that he laid any Reftraint upon B.
not to difpofe of it without his Approbation. But in the Receipts given by J. he took Notice of the Principal
beintr in Mortgage upon the {aid Security, ivhi h the Lord Chancellor thought was an Approbation of the Se-*
curitf ; And lb was of Opinion that A. out;ht to fuftain theLofs, and reverfed a Decree made at the
Rolls to the contrary. But had it flood barely upon the Conftruition of the Law, without any Proof
of the Confent or Approbation of A. there B. mult have bore the Lois according to the Rules of Law
in cafe of Bailment. 2 Freem. Rep. pi. 53. Hill. 1729. Clarke v. Perrier.
13. A Scrivener had Notice of Declarations in Ejeclment delivered on a
'prior Mortgage before he lent his Client's Money, yet he could not be
charged to make good the Money he afterwards lent upon it. Cited by
Ld. Keeper Wright. Chan. Prec. 149. in the Cafe of Luke v„ Bridges
and Chrilly, as Sir John Foach's Cafe.
14. A. had 4700 1. per Ann. granted to her and her Heirs out of the
Exciie orCuftoms, and wanting to barrow Money, B. who was Gentleman
of her Horfe, procured the fame of one C. a Scrivener, who was employed to
let out Money for D. and gave him 100 1. for Procuration; The Security
given for it was out of this 4700 1. per Ann. a Proportion whereof was fet
apart, to be yearly applied towards this Debt, till the whole Principal and In-
tereft was difcharged. C. had received 2900 /. for the Ufa of D. and gave
his Receipts accordingly, and had accounted to D. for above 1700/. but about
1 100/. remained in bis Hands unaccounted for, and he died infolvent : And
the only Queilion was, Whether this Lois ihould fall upon A. or D, ?
And it appearing, That C. was Agent for D. in other Affairs likewife,
and tranfacled this Matter on their Behalf's, faye [faw] the Writings exe-
cuted, and paid the Money lent, and the Money was appointed to be paid at
his Houfe, and the Writings being left with him, and for whatever ap-
peared continued at his Houfe, the Lord Keeper and Mailer of the
Rolls were both of Opinion, That the Lofs ought to fall upon D. and
not upon A. who fecms to have been an utter Stranger to C. before the
Borrowing
292 Scrivener.
Borrowing this Money. And the Mailer of the Rolls took the Dijltnc-
tion, which, he faid, had always been allowed, That if a Bond be left
â– with a Scrivener, that is fufficient for him to receive the Principal and
and Interelt, and the Delivery up of the Bond is a fufficient Diicharge
to him that pays it; But if a Mortgage was left with a Scrivener, this is
a fufficient Authority to him to receive the Intereft, but not the Princi-
pal ; and the Delivery up of the Mortgage by him is no fufficient Dif-
charge to the Mortgagor ; becaufe the Eftate ought to be re-alfigned,
which cannot be done but by the Party himfelf. But the Lent Keeper
faid, He faw no Reafon lor this Difference, but that in Equity it would
be all one, the Money being really paid to the Perlbn who had the Deeds
in his Cultody ; But the Mailer of the Rolls feemed to be of a contrary-
Opinion. But, however, here the Money was to be paid by Iftftalments,
Principal and Interelt together; And it was plain he had accounted for
Part to D. and no Countermand had ever been given j and therefore
thought it reafonable that what was paid to C. lhould be allowed to A.
on Account, her Bill being to redeem. 2 Freem. Rep. 249, 250. pi. 317.
Trin. 1701. in Curia Cane, the Dutchefs of Cleveland v. the Executors
of George Dafhwood.
15. A. borrowed 100 1. of B. upon Bond, which Money was procured
by C. a Scrivener : When the Bond was fealed it was delivered to the Obli-
gee. A. paid federal Tears Interejl to C. the Scrivener, and yoi, Part of tht
Principal Money, which the Scrivener paid to the Obligee, but the lajt 50/.
of the Principal Money being paid to the Scrivener, be broke before he paid
it to the Obligee. And the Queftion was, Whether A. the Plaintiff was to
lofe the Money, or the Obligee ? And the Mailer of the Rolls faid,
That it was the conitant Rule of this Court, That if the Party, to whom
the Security was made, trulled his Security in the Hands of the Scri-
vener, fuch Payment to the Scrivener was good Payment ; but if he took
the Security into his own Keeping, Payment to the Scrivener would not
be good Payment, unlefs it could be proved, That the Scrivener had Au-
thority from the Party to receive it ; And altho' in this Cafe the Scrivener
had received the Intereft and Part of the Principal, and paid it to the
Obligee, yet that did not imply that he had any Authority to receive it;
but as long as he paid it over, all was well, and any one elfe might
have carried it to the Party as well as he; And A. not proving, That
the Scrivener had any Authority from the Obligee to receive, he was
forced to pay the laft 50 1. again, altho 5 the Mafter of the Rolls de-
claredj That he thought it a very hard Cafe. 2 Freem. Rep. 289, 290
pi. 359. Mich. 1705. in Curia Cane. Sir John Wolftenholm v. Davies.
For more of Scrivener in General, See JPajMttCnt and other Proper
Titles.
Search
293
Search for the King.
I. 14 Edw. 3. TIC 7 Hereds before this Time, in cafe that a Man has de~
cap. 14. V V niandcd, by Petition in the Parliament ', certain
Lands and Tenements which be in the King's Hands, and to the fame Peti-
tions has been anfwered in the fame Parliament , Chancery or B. R. That the
King wills that a Writ be f tied to the Treafarer and Chamberlains of the Ex-
chequer to fear ch Charters, Muniments, and other Remembrances which may
him avail, whereby he may be advifed to make Anfwer ;
To which Writs the Treafarer and Chamberlains commonly have anfwered^
That they have fearched, but did not fearch ; and would not anfwer, Thai
they have fully fearched and nothing found, nor that they can no more find but
that which they have fent ; whereby, according to the Law afore this Time
tifed, a Man has not had Caafe to put them which be for the King to anfwer ;
And in fie h Manner the Demandant have been greatly delay d to their Mif-
chief :
Wherefore it is affented, That after that the jour Writs be returned, whe-
ther the Muniment or Remembrance be found for the King or not, that then in
the Parliament, Chancery, or in B. R. or in C. B. they which (hall fue for
the King pall be put to anfwer, and to defend the Lands and Tenements fo
demanded agamjl the King, to the bejl that they can or may, according to the
Law ; So always that every of the 4 Writs be delivered to the Treafarer and to
the Chamberlains 40 Days before the Day of the Return.
2. In every Cafe where the King, being Party, may be at a Lofs, Writ of
Search fhall iii'ue j As in Praecipe quod reddat, or other Real Aclion
againfi his Leffee, who prays in Aid of him ; but not in Perfonal Actions,
becaufe there he fhall lofe Nothing. Fin. Law 177. a.
3. The Form of the Writ is, Rex Thefaurar' & Camerar' fuis Sal. Man-
damus vobis quod Scrutatis rotulis, Memorand', Cartis, Evidentiis, &
aliis Munimentis (Talem Terram tangen') in Thefaurar' noftro nunc fub
Cuftodia veitra exiften', deeoquod inde inveneritis, nos in Cancellaria
noltra in 15 Pafcha: ubicunque' tunc luerimus, fub Jigillo Scaccarrii dif-
tincle' & aperte reddatis cerciores &c. Fin. Law 77. b.
4. One iued by Petition to the King, becaufe J.S. diffeifed him, which
J. S. was attaint of Treafon, whereby the Lands came to the Hands of the