bill by the vicar against a sequestrator for a account of the profit during  the vacancy of the church the court seem to think that the bishop shall have  be a party since the sequestrator be Accountable to he for what he receive by  the stat Henry but by consent this Cause be refer to the bishop of the diocese  hill Jones and barrett in chess bunb Rep it be move that the irregularity of a  sequestration may be refer to the deputy which be take out against the  defendant for not appear by reason of its be take out soon than by the course  of the court it can and yet the sequestrator have take the good off the  premise and threaten to sell they the chief baron say that as to the carry the  good off the premise it be clear the sequestrator can do that because a  sequestration upon Mesne process answer to a distringa at law but however as  to the sell they the court agree in the present case it can not be lawful and  say it have be settle late upon debate and observe far that court of equity  can not authorize sequestrator to sell good even upon a decree till Lord  stamford Act which make decree in this respect equivalent to judgement and  even now the counsel say sequestrator can sell but upon leave of the court  however the court say this be a matter proper for they to consider upon  another occasion and therefore only refer the irregularity of the  sequestration as to the point of time to the deputy mich in chess Desbrough  and Crumbey Barnard Rep in b b bunb Rep m desbrow and Crommie SC state it thus  a sequestration issue against the defendant for want of a answer the  sequestrator remove all his good to pound value at least though the thing in  demand by the bill be little more on a motion to have restitution of the good  in regard that the removal of they be not within the commissioner power  without a order of court and per curian there be a difference between a  sequestration for want of a appearance and for want of a answer even in the  first case it be to be look upon only as a distringa ad infinitum at law and  the distress there ought to be only at first nothing then increase by degree  as the court direct in equity case abridge er p order to compel a appearance  so the sequestrator ought in the I first case after seizure of some good to  apply to the court for further direction for seizure but in the second case  the sequestrator have no power to remove any good much less to sell for the  good be only to be retain in nature of a pledge to answer the contempt and the  plaintiff receive no injury by this for he may set down his case and his bill  may be take pro Confesso and in the principal case the sequestrator have a day  give to show Cause why a attachment shall not go against they c OF revive a  sequestration