This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1824. Excerpt: ... PART II. This Writ, when granted on behalf of a Subject, seems formerly to have been considered a Writ of Grace, and, as we are told, it " used to "be granted at the mere pleasure of the Court, "on affidavit, or, other matter, shewing the par"ty designed to go out of the Realm to the other "party's damage (1)." "It is said, however, to have been settled by "the Lord Keeper Wright, that it being a rec medial Writ, is, as such, upon due application "by petition, or, motion, to be granted the subject (2)." Conformably to this doctrine, the Court formerly granted the Writ, without any Bill hav (1) Practical Reg. (Ed. Wyatt) p. 289. Curs. Cane. 465. (2) Pract. Reg. (Ed Wyatt) 289. Curs. Cane. 455. ing been previously filed (3). But it is now, I apprehend, clearly settled, that this Writ ought not to issue, unless a Bill has been previously filed, or, in other words, there be an existing suit (4). As a preliminary observation, it should not be omitted, "that the writ cannot issue where the "Plaintiff is out of the jurisdiction. There is "(says Lord C. Eldari) no instance of it; and "great inconvenience would result from pre-" "venting a party returning home to settle the "account, on the application of a Plaintiff, who "may never come here. If an account is to be "taken, how is he to proceed against the Plain-tiff (5)?" (3) Lloyd e. Cardy, Free. Ch. 171. Anon. Ca. cited in ex-parte Bruncker, 3 P. Wins. 312; and see note K there. From a MS. note of Ex-parte Bruncker in my possession, the precedent of Lord Cowper's, referred to in that case, was Hendry qui tarn, Use. v. Richardson, in July, 1708, of which my MS. note of Ex-parte Bruncker makes Lord Talbot observe, "that the Crown and public revenue were there "concerned." See also Register's statement in Rod...