case SEYMAN against Gresham Hilary term Elizabeth roll a sheriff can break  open door to execute a can sa orfi fa but he may to execute a capias ullagatum  and perhaps a to stretch out facias and where he can break open the party may  justify shut his door against he in defence of his possession and for the  protection of good lawful in his custody ante Leon   more yely march cro car  Jones I Bulst hob shower cro James roll Rep palmer Mod foster c l ch S and see  the case of lee v Gansel Cowper to hawk Bac Abr Bac Abr action upon the case  suppose that one g Herisford be indebt unto he by a statute staple in and that  he sue execution and the sheriff of London by force of that writ impanel a  jury to inquire what good c and that there be diverse good of the say g  Herisford in such a house in London and that the sheriff come with the say  jury to have a view of they and to appraise and seize they for this debt and  that the defendant prcemissorum non ignorant shut the door and disturhed he to  make execution c the defendant entitle himself to the possession of the house  by reason of a joint lease make unto he and one g Herisford and that he have  it by survivorship and that he shut the door for the salvation of his  possession the plaintiff reply that the say g Herisford mention in thebar and  he who be oblige in the statute be all one person and it be thereupon demurrer  the principal question be whether this shuttin of the door be a disturbance of  the execution and whether the plaintiff may thereupon maintain this action and  first it be agree by the whole court that upon a capacity ad to give  satisfaction the sheriff may not break open any man house to make execution  but he be punish able for dome it but upon a capias utlagalum he man well  enter any man house to apprehend he for no place ought to protect he against  the croak Elizabeth queen and he heina out of the law shall not have the  protection of the law and this case Tanfield say be resolve by all the justice  of the common plea in sir Thornas Keimies case but whether he may upon a  become facias or to stretch out facias enter the house of any to take  execution of the good and to breakthe party house to make execution they doubt  vide Edward execution rdw pl Edward pl but if the door he open there be no  doubt but that the sheriff may enter to do execution for the law give he  authority thereto as a executor may enter to take good leave there by the  testator and for this cause gawdy and Popham hold that the action here well  lie because by the shut of the door the party be disturhed to have his  execution but Fenner and Yelverton contra for the good be in the defendant  house who be a stranger to the execution he be not bind to take conusance of  the sheriff intent in come to make execution and his shut the door be lawful  and although there be loss to the plaintiff yet it be damnum without injury  and it appear not by what mean that the good of the conusors which be in the  defendant house come thither and if they be take by the defendant as a  trespasser the party who good they be or the sheriff upon execution may come  within the house if the door he open to seize they because the defendant have  they by unlawful mean but if the defendant have they by lawful mean videlicet  by bailment or otherwise neither the party himself nor the sheriff can come  within the house to seize they and therefore the shut of the door be no cause  of action for the plaintiff and therefore the action lie not c et adjournatur  note that afterward mich term James this cause be argue again and that William  agree with the opinion of Yelverton and Fenner in omnibus and that the sheriff  may not break any man house to take execution unless in the queen case or for  a contempt c wherefore accord to their opinion it be adjudge for the defendant    croak Elizabeth er p