case morris v hankey Lord chancellor king in a injunction the word pro  diminution plea c be intend of a issuable plea and the word judgment to go  into be intend of a final judgement therefore if the defendant be in execution  and plead plene to manage and the plaintiff at law enter judgement de good  testator cum to fall upon he may proceed to a to know facias to inquire of  asset and enter judgement thereupon for the meaning of the injunction be that  the defendant may proceed so far as that nothing shall remain but to take out  execution after the injunction be dissolve the question be touch the breach of  a injunction the defendant in this court bring a action against the plaintiff  as executor of Humphrey morris Esq the defendant at law peer William bring a  bill and after the defendant in this court have deliver a declaration upon  such defendant pray time to answer the plaintiff get a injunction the  plaintiff at law proceed there and on plene to manage plead take judgement de  good testator cum to fall upon after which he take out a to know facias in  order to a inquiry of asset whereupon it be move that this be a breach of the  injunction be a proceed after judgement whereas the injunction only give leave  to enter judgement that the to know facias be in nature of a new action on the  judgement which ought not to have be bring without leave of the court but by  the Lord chancellor not have hear any precedent cite in this case I be  therefore to be guide by the reason of the thing and to prevent a delay of  justice it be admit that after a interlocutory judgement as by default or on  demurrer the plaintiff may go on to ascertain his damage now the meaning of  the rule in the present peer William case be that notwithstanding the  injunction the plaintiff at law shall be at liberty to proceed to a effectual  judgement all that the court intend to stop be the execution but the plaintiff  at law be nevertheless allow to proceed so far as that he may be at liberty  eastern instant that the injunction shall be dissolve to take out execution  neither be the to know facias like a new action upon the judgement but a  continuation only of the old one on the same record with that and in nature of  a proceed after a interlocutory judgement to a final one wright v nut t r  Tidds practice wherefore the court rule that the bring this to know facias be  no breach of the injunction the word of such injunction be that all proceed  shall stay to be for sale autem for the defendant in equity who be plaintiff  at law placitum ad common feature law postulate et ad triationem ind to go  before et pro diminution plea judgment to go into execution yes vigor  prsentium retarda after service of a injunction of this kind the defendant at  law put in a frivolous plea to a action of debt on a bind which the plaintiff  demurrer to and have get it make a concilium after argument obtain judgement  also upon another bind after the injunction serve on the defendant and his  attorney they deliver a declaration it be object first with regard to the  judgement that this be a breach of the injunction for that in one case only  videlicet pro diminution placita be the plaintiff at liberty to enter  judgement and here be no want of a plea also that the deliver a declaration in  the other action be a manifest contempt as have be often determine with  respect to the first the Lord chancellor strong incline to think this no  contempt since a frivolous plea be as no plea and that as to plaintiff at law  may by the express term of the injunction proceed to try a issue on the fact  by the same reason he may proceed to try a issue in law which when the court  have determine and find the plea ill be upon the matter no plea Ana in  relation to the second point his lordship think that have there not be some  resolution to the contrary the delivery of the declaration be no breach of the  injunction since by the very term thereof the plaintiff be at liberty to  proceed to trial and the delivery c be a incident without which there can be  no trial by the Lord Parker Sidney v Hethrington Trinity the practice at  present be understand to be that the delivery of a declaration be a breach of  the injunction garlic v Pearson Ves Bullen v ovey Ves mill v cobby mere it may  be remark however that the action in the last of these case be a ejectment  where the declaration be the peer William er p commencement of the action  whereas in other case the writ not the declaration be the commencement of the  action see note in williams sander c Tidds practice and in Bullen v ovey the  act which the court hold to be a breach be not the fill or delivery of a  declaration but one which may have endanger the liberty of the party in the  exchequer a injunction to stay proceed at law extend to all step in a cause  except proceed to trial where a plaintiff be in a condition to join issue in a  issuable term in a country cause see fowl Exch bring d Edward in Franco v  Franco Cox where a injunction have be obtain to restrain proceed at law upon a  award which before service of the injunction have be make a rule of court in  king b Lord Rosslyn hold that the obtain a rule to show cause why a attachment  shall not issue for nonperformance of the award be no breach of the injunction  and that the rule may have be make absolute for attachment without breach so  as the attachment be not execute in chaplin v Cooper V b a obligor in a joint  and several bind have obtain a injunction in a suit to which his coobligor be  not a party execution be afterward take out upon appoint judgement by the  defendant in equity and notice of the injunction be give to the sheriff with  direction to take coobligor only and not the plaintiff in equity and this be  hold not to be a breach of the injunction