case versus emerton a after judgement in ejectment and a writ of possession  take out against he bring a bill and have a injunction on a dedimus this  injunction be allow to extend to the undersheriff who have refuse to execute  the writ and be in contempt to a attachment in the king b before the bill file  the defendant have obtain judgement in ejectment against the now plaintiff and  have execution award but the undersheriff refuse to execute it whereupon by  rule of court of the king bench the undersheriff be order to attend and for  not attend a attachment be award against he after all this proceed the  defendant in the ejectment exhibit his bill in this court and emerton pray a  dedimus a injunction be grant of course I move my lord that this injunction  may not extend to stay proceed against the undersheriff for his contempt to  the court of king bench for that he be prosecute for the contempt at the king  suit and it be unnatural for the king by his injunction to stay his own suit  in another court the offence be commit before the bill exhibit yet the motion  be deny by my Lord chancellor but a injunction upon a attachment or a dedimus  or upon defendant pray time do not extend to stay proceed in the spiritual  court but to stay such proceed it must be move special anon p wms reed v  bowyer price query as to the proceed in the court of admiralty June anon atk  MNamara v Macquire dick in what case this court and upon what ground a court  of law rant injunction or otherwise stay proceed in ecclesiastical court petit  v smith p wms Blackborough v Davies ibidem Nicholas v Nicholas pre in Chan  hill v turner atk Rotherham v fanshaw atk where and upon what ground not  Stephenton v gardener p wms Basset v Basset atk Rotherham v fanshaw atk  prohibition to the spiritual court will he at law in the case of executor sue  there for a account sparrow v Norfolk Noy contra in the case of a  administrator Montague v clark ibidem take we case ibidem launch v Ross cite  there but if administrator be sue in the spiritual court for division of good  prohibition will lie ibidem et vide Henry c et vide brown v brown post where  say arguendo at the bar that it be not usual to stay proceed on attachment in  another court Vernon chancery case de boundary S HILLARII car two in curian  porter