case harvey versus eastindia company see London jointstock bank v mayor of  London c p d vern S c after service of a writ of execution of decree against a  corporation the next process be a distringa and after that a sequestration  which be once award they can never after come and pray to enter their  appearance as they may have do on the distringa which issue for that very  purpose to compel they to appear but the appear be pass the process must go on  because the appearance be only in favour of liberty can be of no service to a  corporation which can be commit the plaintiff have a decree against the  defendant for a great sum of money and serve they with a writ of execution in  the usual form and they precedent in chancery not perform the decree a  distringa the next process against a corporation be award and S issue return  and after on a motion a sequestration be order nisi c and now they pray to  enter their appearance with the register upon the distringa and to discharge  the sequestration it be urge this may well be do because it be only a contempt  from which a corporation ought to have liberty and a opportunity to clear  themselves as well as a common person and though they can answer the contempt  on oath nor be commit if round against they yet there be no reason why they  shall not have a opportunity to defend themselves a peer shall contest a  contempt and must enter his appearance yet he shall not answer upon oath  unless perhaps for a contempt precedent in chancery er p against the peace and  if condemned he can be commit but a sequestration go absolute and a  corporation must answer interrogatory as they answer a bill videlicet under  their common seal and cite the case of Danby versus Lawson foster versus  Christ hospital hill W and a case where a appearance be enter on a distringa  in process for want of a answer and a sequestration must not go right or wrong  and a corporation have no other way to defend themselves against the  sequestration but this it be likewise urge that the very writ of distringa be  to distrain they to appear and mention to be only because they can be attach  by their person yet now they will not have they appear and the court be ad  faciend recipiend and it be absurd to say that judgement shall be give against  they without have a answer on the other side it be say that the examination  for a contempt be for the benefit of the plaintiff and be to be upon oath  which if such appearance be allow to corporation will be lose to the plaintiff  that the allow of such appearance be only in favour of liberty and not  necessary to corporation which can precedent in chancery be commit that  against a private person the plaintiff shall have body land and good against a  corporation sequestration only and as the plaintiff have many disadvantage  against a corporation it be reasonable he shall lose no advantage and as a  common person have advantage by appear so have the plaintiff too for if find  in contempt the next process be a commitment which else will be a proclamation  and then a commission of rebellion c and the case cite be of very little  moment for these be of appearance say to be enter in pursuance of a order so  not of course and it do not appear any notice be take of they in court but  they pass sub silence that they have now a proper time to defend themselves  upon this order for the sequestration be order only nisi causan and they may  show for cause that they have pay the money or perform the decree if the truth  be so cur the defendant precedent be of no weight because in all of they  natural person as well as a corporation be defendant and the order be in  general term may be reasonable expound to mean only the first and also be all  ex part and absolute the party be not to be hear upon any subsequent process  why more upon this the appearance enter of common person be in favour of  liberty and the plaintiff have a mutual benefit which here he can have nor can  the defendant lose their liberty if you have come and show any irregularity  that may have be cause to discharge the order but since you do not let the  order be make absolute then they pray a further day to be hear which be grant  they appear and make several objection to the service saint that there be  several variances between the writ of execution and the copy of it leave with  the company but upon read of they the variances appear not to be material so  that objection be overrule precedent in chancery dly for that the writ of  execution be not of the whole decree for the decree quod to sum up be leave  out and nothing in but the decree to pay the money state by the master report  but that be overrule for that it be not necessary the writ of execution shall  contain any more dly it be object that the service be upon the governor of the  company only who have no power over the company cash and can not pay the money  decree and it be say the service ought to have be on the committee but this be  likewise overrule for then if the committee will not meet or not admit the  party in to serve they there can be no service so the order be make absolute