case martin v Kerridge Lord chancellor Talbot in chancery not only the body of  the defendant but also his land and good be liable to a sequestration but no  sequestration lie till the time for the return of the attachment be out on  which the body be take Martin have recover a decree for pound against the  defendant Kerridge and have sue out a attachment returnable last term against  he and on non be invention return take out a attachment against he returnable  next term on which peer William attachment the defendant be take turn himself  over to the fleet and the next day be the first seal after Hilary term upon a  certificate of the warden of the fleet that he be a prisoner there the matter  have be move the Lord chancellor grant a sequestration and this order be draw  up and the sequestration serve the next seal I move the court to discharge the  order for the sequestration for that the attachment on which the defendant be  take into custody be not returnable until the next term all which time the  defendant have to pay the money and it be a most transcendent power exercise  by the court of chancery beyond what the commonlaw allow that the plaintiff in  this court shall take the body and while that be in execution seize the land  also but that still this must be when the defendant lie obstinate in prison  and spend his estate there without pay any of his debt under which  circumstance it may be reasonable the plaintiff shall have a sequestration  whereas in the present case it do not appear before the return of the writ  peer William er p whether the defendant will or will not pay the money and he  have that money to redeem his person Lord chancellor until the return of the  writ it be quite uncertain whether the defendant will pay the money or no and  though it may be reasonable where the court find that a prisoner obstinate  continue in prison there spend his estate which shall go towards satisfaction  if his debt though it may I say in that case be but just to let his creditor  have such estate yet this practice with regard to the sequestration as it be  in its nature somewhat extraordinary ought not to be extend for which reason  on debate of peer William the matter and hear counsel on both side the order  for the sequestration be discharge see Chan can hide v petit of the rise and  progress of sequestrations after the return of to take in hand corpus to a  attachment for want of appearance a messenger must go before sequestration  issue mile v lingham Ves holme v Cardwell mad