*This, it seems, does not extend to cases where more than one action is brought on a bill of exchange or note; but the master in such a case is to allow, according to the length of the declaration. Cripps V. Field, 8 Mees. & W. 659.

Every brief sheet to contain eight folios at the least, which are to be paid for at the rate of 6s. 8d. per sheet for drawing and 3s. 4d. copying. Directions. Tax, H. 1834.

Note. For all other matters the usual fees, attendances, &c., in addition to what actually paid.

As to the fees paid to the officers of the court, see vol. 1, pp. 11-19.

As to fees paid to sheriffs and their officers, see vol. 1, p. 23.

Motion to review the taxation.] The court will not, in the first instance, lay down the principle upon which the master should tax in any particular tax; the master must tax first, and if either party be dissatisfied with the taxation, he may move the court that the master should review it. Head v. Baldrey, 8 Ad. & El. 605. Nor will the court in general entertain this application, unless they see clearly that the master has come to a wrong conclusion. Rennie v. Mills, 8 Law J., 148, cp. The motion is for a rule to show cause why the master should not review his taxation. It is founded upon an affidavit showing the items objected to, and the grounds of objection. Aliven v. Furnival, 2 Dowl. 49. Daniel v. Bishop, M'Clel. 61. It must also show that the master has made his allocatur, for until the master has done so, his taxation cannot be reviewed. Cleaver v. Hargrave, 2 Dowl. 689. Sellman v. Boorn, 8 Mees. & W. 552. If the court make the rule absolute, they never do so with costs, where the mistake is with the taxing officer. Ward v. Bell, 2 Dowl. 76. Parsons v. Pitcher, 6 Id. 600.

9. Remedy for costs.

The remedy for costs given by a judgment, is by writ of execution; except in ejectment, where the remedy for costs against the lessor of the plaintiff, or against the defendant if the plaintiff be nonsuit by reason of his not confessing lease, entry and ouster, is by attachment. See Ejectment," post. The remedy for costs upon a rule, is in all cases by attachment. See ante, p. 119, &c. Where in an action of slander, after notice of trial given, the defendant, by agreement with the plaintiff, signed a written apology, reciting the action, and that the plaintiff had consented, on his paying the costs of the action as between attorney and client, and making an apology, to stay proceedings,—and it then set out the apology; upon his afterwards refusing to pay the costs, the court granted a rule to show cause why he should not pay the plaintiff's attorney the amount of the costs in the action and the costs of the application, or why the plaintiff should not be at liberty to sign judgment against him by default: this

was opposed by the defendant, on the ground that the paper contained no undertaking upon his part to pay the costs; but the court held that it amounted to a positive undertaking to do so, and they made the rule absolute for the payment of 651. 78. (the amount of the costs), and the costs of the application. Tardreu v. Brook, 5 B. & Ad. 880. And see Riley v. Burn, 2 B. & Ad. 779. But the court will not order a person who is not a party to the cause, to pay the costs of it; although he be the real party interested in the event of it; Hayward v. Gifford et al., 4 Mees. & W. 194. Richards v. Frankum, 9 Law J., 231, ex. Evans v. Rees, 1 Dowl. N. C. 338; except in ejectment.

Id.

As to costs in particular actions, or in particular proceedings, see those titles respectively throughout this work.

SECTION IX.

Execution.

1. Execution, generally.

In what cases and how sued out.] A writ of execution is an order to the sheriff to carry into effect the judgment of a court of law in favour of a plaintiff or defendant. It can only issue upon a judgment, and not until the judgment is signed; see Finch v. Brook, 5 Dowl. 59; but it is not necessary that the judgment should be actually entered on the roll, before the writ of execution is sued out. Deemer v. Brooker, 4 Dowl. 9. The writs are, the fieri facias against the goods and chattels of the party, the elegit against his goods and lands, and the capias ad satisfaciendum against his person. The levari facias never occurs in practice, in civil actions, except in the case of outlawry.

There is no objection to having several of these writs running at the same time; as for instance, two writs of fieri facias, or capias ad satisfaciendum, issued into different counties, Dunn v. Harding, 2 Dowl. 803, or a writ of fi. fa. and a writ of ca. sa. into the same or different counties. Primrose v. Gibson, 2 D. & R. 193. Smith v. Johnson, 2 Cr. M. & R. 350. Dicas v. Warne, 2 Dowl. 762. But care must be taken, if possible, that not more than one is executed. See Lewis v. Morris et al., 2 Cr. & M. 712. If a fi. fa. be once executed, that is to say, if any sum, however small, be levied under it, no other writ of execution can issue, until the fi. fa. be returned. Miller v. Parnell, 6 Taunt. 370. Wilson v. Kingston, 2 Chit. 203. See Gardner v. Cover, 1 Gale, 45. Where a levy was made under a fi. fa. but the sum levied was barely sufficient to pay the rent due to the landlord, and a small sum towards the expenses of the execution; and the plaintiff therefore sued out a