on the next day but one. Munnings v. Adamson, 1 Sim. 510.

The insufficiency of an answer cannot be made available upon shewing cause for the continuance or dissolution of an injunction. Anon. 2 Ken. 23. Chanc.

It is not necessary for a party who seeks to continue an injunction to the bearing, to shew an indefeasible right to the decree prayed by the bill.

Where, therefore, assignees of a bankrupt sought a specific performance of an agreement for a lease, against a party who was herself a lessee, and restrained from assigning without the consent of the lessor in writing thereto obtained; the Court continued the injunction to restrain proceedings at law; there being a probability of obtaining the consent of the lessor to the assignment. Powell v. Lloyd, 1 Y. & J. 427.

The Court having ordered an injunction to be continued, refused to impose the terms of paying money into court, where the parties were attorney and client. Goddard v. Carlisle 9 Price, 169.

(G) BREACH OF.

It is a breach of a common injunction, obtained after four proclamations had been made under a writ of exigent, to sue out a writ of allocatur exigent. Marack v. Bailey, 4 Law J. Chanc. 205, s. c. 2 S. & S. 597.

Where an injunction has been extended to stay trial, it is a breach of the injunction to give notice of trial, even though the notice be accompanied with an intimation that it is to be held nugatory, unless the injunction is dissolved before the day of trial. Bird v. Branker, 3 Law J. Chanc. 84, s. c. 2 S. & S. 186.

If a plaintiff who has obtained an injunction, misrepresents to the public what has been done by the Court, and the defendant, to correct that misrepresentation, does an act, which, in strictness, is a breach of the injunction, the Court will not entertain any complaint against him on the part of the plaintiff, for such a breach. Barfield v. Nicholson, 2 Law J. Chanc. 90.

(H) DISSOLVING.

Impertinence in an answer is a good ground for dissolving an injunction. Joseph v. Simpson, 10 Price, 25.

Where exceptions to the Master's report, that a further answer to an injunction bill was not impertinent, were overruled, and the report confirmed: The Court, under special circumstances, dissolved the injunction immediately, without allowing a reference back for insufficiency, and putting the defendant to a new order nisi. Robertson v. Le Mercier, M'Clel. 343.

The order nisi for dissolving the common injunction, cannot be obtained after exceptions to the answer have been filed. Williams v. Davis, 1 Law J. Chanc. 121.

Where all the defendants have not answered, one who has answered cannot obtain an order nisi, to dissolve generally an injunction which, for want of answer, issued against all. Todd v. Desmore, 4 Law J. Chanc. 95, s. c. 2 S. & S. 277.

It is not competent to a party, supporting a motion

271

to dissolve an injunction, to state anything from the bill, however well supported it might be on the hearing by the evidence, if it be not admitted by the answer. Maxwell v. Ward, 11 Price, 14.

The common injunction having been obtained for want of answer, an answer is subsequently put in, to which exceptions are taken; the Master having found the answer sufficient, exceptions are taken to his report, and the order to argue them is served upon the defendant; afterwards the defendant obtains an order nisi to dissolve the injunction: Held, that this order is irregular, as the defendant ought

to have obtained an absolute order in the first instance. Merest v. Coster, 2 Law J. Chanc. 46, s. c. 1 S. & S. 486.

If, on a bill for a discovery only, an injunction be obtained, and the plaintiff file exceptions to the defendant's answer, but omit to set them down for argument, and they are upon the usual order overruled, the defendant may, in the first instance, move to dissolve the injunction, though he has not obtained the usual previous order. Mellish v. Richardson, 13 Price, 23.

After a subpoena has been sealed, no alteration can be effected; therefore, where an injunction had been obtained for want of appearance to a writ altered by changing the return-On motion, the Court quashed the subpoena, and set aside the attachment and injunction which had been granted, on the ground of irregularity. Parker v. Ewart, 9 Price, 441.

On the allowance of a demurrer to a bill, an injunction will not be dissolved as of course, but an application must be made to the Court. Barclay v. Curtis, 11 Price, 661.

It is sufficient if exceptions be filed at any time during the day on which they are to be shewn for cause against dissolving an injunction. Norton v. Kerr, 3 Law J. Chanc. 89.

In a suit for a commission abroad, a discovery, and injunction, if the common injunction have issued before trial, against the defendant, a foreigner, in contempt for want of an answer on the usual affidavit; the defendant may be heard on motion to dissolve the injunction, before answer, so far as to shew, on the face of the affidavit itself, that it issued erroneously; but he cannot read another affidavit to the merits in support of the motion. And semble, that an application to pay into court the money sought to be recovered at law, before a commission has been applied for, is premature. Keeling v. Sellick, 1 M'Clel. & Y. 359.

Semble-Where the instruments creating the plaintiff's title, and the facts giving him title under those instruments, are neither admitted nor denied in the answer, it is sufficient for him, upon a motion to dissolve an injunction, to verify by affidavit the instruments; and it is not necessary for him to state by affidavit, all the circumstances constituting his personal title under those instruments. Hodgson v. Dean, 3 Law J. Chanc. 95, s. c. 2 S. & S. 221.

Though affidavits are admissible at law, they may not be on motion to dissolve an injunction. Hence, affidavits containing documents of which the defendant is ignorant, cannot be received. Barrett v. Tickell, 1 Jac. 155.

On shewing cause on the merits against an order nisi, for dissolving an injunction, the plaintiff is not

272

entitled to the reply. Tyrrell v. Vaudeville, 1 Y. & J. 403.

The contents of documents set forth in the schedule to the answer, in an injunction cause, may be obtained before the dissolution of the injunction, and used to oppose the motion to dissolve it.

Hence, when the injunction has been dissolved, and the plaintiff afterwards, by inspecting the documents referred to by the answer, discovers new matter, he cannot move to revive the injunction upon the amended bill containing the new matter, and verified by affidavit. Powell v. Lassalette, 1 Jac. 549.

Where the plaintiff elects to shew the impertinence of the answer as cause against dissolving an injunction, and the Master reports the answer to be not impertinent, the Court will dissolve the injunction absolutely; and a second order nisi is not necessary. Cox v. Horwell, 2 Y. & J. 36.

A common injunction having been obtained for want of answer, on the answer coming in, exceptions were taken and allowed; the bill was then amended; to which, and the exceptions, a further answer was put in; the further answer was referred for scandal and impertinence. The Master reported it was neither scandalous nor impertinent. And on this report, the defendant obtained the usual order to dissolve the injunction nisi. Exceptions to the answer to the amended bill were offered to be shewn as cause, but the Court considered the reference for scandal and impertinence a dilatory proceeding, and dissolved the injunction. Stone v. Bettridge, 2 Y. & J. 482.

Two executors were appointed, one proved, the other declined to act; an action was commenced by the acting executor against a debtor to the testator, and, the rule of law requiring all the executors to join, the action was brought in the name of both executors. On a bill filed by the debtor, he obtained the common injunction for want of answer. The acting executor subsequently put in an answer, and on an affidavit that the other executor, who resided abroad, refused to act or to put in any answer, the Court granted an order nisi to dissolve the injunction. Kilby v. Stanton, 2 Y. & J. 75.

(J) REVIVAL.

Where an order for enlarging the time for shewing cause against the common order for dissolving an injunction to stay proceedings in an action at law, had been obtained on an undertaking to shew cause on the merits confessed in the answer: The Court discharged it with costs, the bill having been filed for a discovery merely, notwithstanding it also prayed a commission and an injunction; and such an order having been discharged, renders it necessary for the plaintiff to move to revive the injunction, which becomes dissolved as a necessary consequence. Jackson v. Strong, 13 Price, 309. (K) PRACTICE.

[See PRACTICE-IN EQUITY.]

Ex parte applications for injunctions in the court of the Vice Chancellor, are to be made, for the future, at the commencement of the sitting of the court, instead of at its rising. Reg. Gen. 1 Law J. Chanc.

60.

A plaintiff cannot, before the appearance of the

defendant, give notice of an application for a special injunction, without previously obtaining the leave of the Court. Memorandum, 2 Law J. Chanc. 81.

A motion for an injunction upon notice, and before appearance, cannot be made, unless leave to give notice has been obtained, and the notice express that fact. Cook v. ~~ --, 4 Law J. Chanc. 141.

On an interpleading bill, the injunction may be moved for before the time for answering is out. Warington v. Wheatstone, 1 Jac. 205.

The plaintiff, in a bill of interpleader, may move at once for a special injunction on payment of the money into court, without first obtaining the common injunction. Vicary v. Widger, 1 S. & S. 15.

After the Master had signed his report as to the insufficiency of an answer, an order was obtained for an injunction for want of an answer; but it being before the report was filed, the Court held it to be irregular. Wynne v. Jackson, 2 S. & S. 226.

An injunction against setting up outstanding terms, cannot be obtained on motion. Plunket v. Cavendish, 3 Law J. Chanc 279: s. P. Barney v. Luckett, 1 Law J. Chanc. 216, s. c. 1. S. & S. 419; S. P. Northey v. Pearce, 1 Law J. Chanc. 226, s. c. 1 S. & S. 420.

When a bill is referred for scandal, and found scandalous, a motion cannot be made for an injunction until the scandalous matter is expunged. Davenport v. Davenport, 6 Mad. 351.

The affidavits, upon which an ex parte application for an injunction is made, must shew, either, that notice to the defendant would be mischievous, or that the mischief is so urgent, that it would be done, if notice were served upon the defendant, before the injunction could be obtained. When the affidavits fall short of this point, the motion must be directed to stand over, and notice of it to be served upon the defendant. Anon. 1 Law J. Chanc. 3.

If a bill which prays the common injunction is amended, and the defendant obtains an order for time to answer the amended bill, the plaintiff is entitled to the common injunction, although no injunction was obtained on the original bill. Statham v. Hughes, 3 Law J. Chanc. 199, s. c. 2 S. & S. 382.

A plaintiff who bad obtained the common injunction, as of course, procured an order to amend, and then obtained an injunction, upon the amended bill, as of course: Held, that a special application ought to have been made. Home v. Watson, 2 Sim. 85.

On motion for an injunction, where there were conflicting affidavits, both parties were ordered to be examined. De Tastet v. Bordenave, 1 Jac. 516.

Where a supplemental bill is filed, praying an injunction, and the merits on which the plaintiff would be entitled to an injunction depend not on the facts alleged in the supplemental bill, but on those alleged in the original, an affidavit to the facts stated in the supplemental bill, will not suffice to enable the plaintiff to obtain an order (the defendant being abroad,) that service of the subpœna, on the defendant's attorney-at-law, may be good service. Levi v. Ward, 1 Law J. Chanc. 77.

In injunction bills, where the defendant resides abroad, and an application is made that service of process on his attorney-at-law may be good service, the Court of Chancery requires the bill to be accompanied by an affidavit by the plaintiff, of merits.

In the Court of Exchequer the affidavit is not required until the motion is made for the injunction. Royal Exchange Assurance Company v. Short, 1 Y. & J. 570.

Where notice of motion for an injunction given for a particular day, is saved to a subsequent day, and the answer comes in after the day specified in the notice, but before the motion is made, affidavits filed before the day specified in the notice may be read against the answer. Glassington v. Thwaites, 1 Law J. Chanc. 113, s. c. 1 S. & S. 134.

On a motion, after the coming in of the answer, for an injunction to restrain the defendant (the holder of a promissory note) from proceeding at law against the plaintiff (the maker of the note), the plaintiff will not be allowed to read affidavits, in order to prove circumstances of conduct and acts of a third party (the original payee of the note), which are necessary to found the equity of the plaintiff, and as to which the defendant, in his answer, neither admitting nor denying them, says that he can give no information. Whitehouse v. Hickman, 2 Law J. Chanc. 59.

Where an insolvent who had executed a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors, applied for an injunction to restrain their proceeding under the deed, upon affidavits, charging breaches of trust in the execution of the deed: the Court refused it, the trustees not having been called on for an answer. Izard v. Colborn, 13 Price, 327, s. c. M'Clel. 181.

Upon a bill filed by underwriters for an injunction against an action on a policy of insurance, and for a commission to examine witnesses abroad, the Court will not grant the injunction and commission, except upon the terms of having the money paid into court; even though it should appear, on the answer of the defendants, that there is a case for inquiry in a court of equity. Irving v. Harrison, 3 Law J. Chanc. 48.

In an injunction cause, a defendant, to whose answer exceptions have been allowed, is entitled to file a further answer, after notice to his solicitor, that the plaintiff has presented a petition for an order to be at liberty to amend and that the defendant may answer amendments and exceptions together, provided the further answer be filed before the order is actually served. Leyburn v. Green, 2 Russ. 577.

(L) COSTS.

Semble-That a creditor proceeding at law, and who has notice of a decree against the executor, is not entitled to his costs of the executor's application for an injunction. Anon. 3 Law J. Chanc. 227.

Where the plaintiff brought an action at law, after a decree of reference to take an account had been obtained on a creditor's bill against executors, the Court granted an injunction, though the defendant had not acquainted the plaintiff of the decree at the time of being served with process, and not having given notice of such decree, or of this application, until after notice of trial, was ordered to pay to the plaintiff all the costs of the proceedings at law, up to the time of the service of notice of the decree, and the costs of the motion for the injunction. Farlow v. Wilson, 11 Price, 95.

When a motion to dissolve an injunction to restrain proceedings on a post obit bond is refused, the DIGEST, 1822-1828.

273

party making the motion will be ordered to pay the costs. Marsack v. Reeves, 6 Mad. 108.

If an attachment has been sealed and an injunction issued against a defendant for want of answer, and the defendant having put in his answer and knowing that an office copy of it has been taken by the plaintiff, makes on the same day two motions as of course, the one for the clearance of his contempt, the other for the order that the injunction may be dissolved nisi, and also tenders the costs, the order nisi will on motion be discharged with costs as irregularly obtained. Ibbottson v. Booth, 1 Law J. Chanc. 83, s. c. 1 S. & S. 103.

INNKEEPER.

The liability of an innkeeper for the safe custody of the goods of his guest, is the same as that of a carrier, in respect of the goods intrusted to him; and that liability cannot be removed, except by distinct notice to the guest.

Accordingly, where the servant of an innkeeper was about to remove the luggage of a guest to his bed-room, and the guest desired that a carpet bag (part of his luggage,) should be left in a room of the inn, called the Commercial Room, which was done accordingly, and the bag was afterwards stolen from that room; the innkeeper was held to be liable for the value of the contents of the bag. Richmond v. Smith, 6 Law J. K.B. 219, s. c. 8 B. & C. 9, s. c. 2 M. & R. 235.

As an hotel-keeper is subject to the same liabilities as an innkeeper, he should be declared against as such. Jones v. Osborn, 2 Chit. 484.

Under a fictitious proceeding, A seized the horse of B, and placed it at an inn; subsequently B applied to C, the landlord, who refused to restore the horse, unless he paid for his keep: Held, that unless C was cognizant that A was a wrong-doer, he had a lien for the keep of the horse against B. Johnson v. Hill, 3 Stark. 172. [Abbott]

INNS OF COURT.

The Inns of Court cannot be compelled by a mandamus to admit a person a member of one of the societies. Rex v. the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn, 4 B. & C. 855, s. c. 7 D. & R. 351.

INQUISITION.

[See CORONER, MURDER, and TIME.]

An inquisition may be good in part, and void as to the residue, as, if freehold and copyhold lands be extended under an elegit, the latter not being extendable, that part of the property must be abandoned. Morris v. Jones, 3 D. & R. 603.

INQUIRY, WRIT OF.

A notice of executing a writ of inquiry need not be signed by a clerk in court, nor entered in the book in the office of Pleas.

2 M

274

Notice of executing a writ of inquiry must state, that it will be executed between two certain hours of the day. Morris v. Lane, 5 Law J. C.P. 76.

A notice of executing a writ of inquiry, left at defendant's house in the country during a temporary absence, is a good service. Knibbs v. Hopcraft, 10 Price, 147.

Where the notice of executing a writ of inquiry was served upon the defendant personally, and not upon his attorney or clerk in court, the service was beld to be insufficient. Brooks v. Till, 2 Y. & J. 276.

Semble-That a notice of executing a writ of inquiry can be continued or countermanded but once; but after several notices and countermands have been served, a fresh, and not a continuing notice, is regular. Burgess v. Royle, 2 Chit. 220.

A motion to set aside an inquisition for excessive damages, must be supported by affidavits at the time the application for the rule is made. Williams v. Reeves, 2 Chit. 218.

In an action for work and labour, the jury, on the execution of a writ of inquiry, cannot give interest. The affidavits of jurymen may be received on an application for setting aside their inquisition, on the ground of their having allowed interest, where the facts were as above stated, and formed the subject matter of the affidavit. Milson v. Hayward, 9 Price,

134.

The Court will not allow minutes taken before the under-sheriff, on a writ of inquiry for an assault, to be admitted on an application to set aside the inquisition for excessive damages;-and an application for such a purpose cannot be supported on affidavits by the defendants parties themselves. Lathbury v. Brown, 3 Law J. C.P. 81.

INSOLVENT DEBTOR.

(A) OF THE COURT FOR THE RELIEF OF INSOLVENT DEBTORS.

(a) Commissioners and Officers. (b) Powers.

(B) OF THE PETITION.

(a) In general.

(b) Who may petition.

(c) Contents.

(d) Filing.

(C) OF THE ASSIGNMENT.

(a) Effect of.

(b) Estate Paper.

(D) OF THE ASSIGNEES.

(a) Appointment.

(b) Powers, Rights, and Duties. (E) OF THE Schedule.

(F) OF THE HEARING.

(a) Order for.

(b) Notice of.

(c) Evidence.

(G) OPPOSITION.

(a) Notice of.

(b) Falsification of Books.

(c) Fraudulently concealing or making away with Property, and Fraudulent Preference.

(A) OF THE COURT FOR THE RELIEF OF INSOLVENT DEBTORS.

(a) Commissioners and Officers.

An insolvent debtor applied to be discharged out of prison. He was remanded by the justices, to be confined in actual custody for two years. A certificate of such adjudication was sent to the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors. The clerk of that Court falsely and maliciously sent an order of that Court to the gaoler, for his discharge out of custody.

The Court of King's Bench, on error from the Common Pleas, held, that an action on the case to recover compensation, would lie against the clerk at the suit of the detaining creditor. Whitelegg v. Richards, 1 Law J. K.B. 231, s. c. 2 B. & C. 45, s. c. 3 D. & R. 237.

(b) Powers.

The Court, under the 1 Geo. 4, c. 119, s. 13, has no power to permit the assignees of an insolvent to compound a suit in equity. In re Truss, 1 Cress.

150.

Although an insolvent be unopposed, the Court will (if fraud appear) exercise a discretionary power vested in it by the act of parliament, and prolong the imprisonment of the party. In re Lewis, i Cress.

89.

An insolvent debtor may be brought before a commissioner of the Insolvent Debtors Court, by a rule or order of, and signed "by the Court," but if signed by the commissioner, it is a nullity. Anon. 2 Chit. 225.

The Court has the power of appointing an assig. nee so long as the estate is vested in the provisional assignee. In re Bradbury, 1 Cress. 71.

An opposing creditor whose debt does not amount to 201. must first get execution before the adjudication can be carried into effect: the Court, however, has the power of remanding the case to such a period as would enable the creditor to attain his object. In re Uungblut, 1 Cress. 81.

The direction of the Court that the insolvent shall be confined within the walls of the prison, forms no part of the adjudication, and, therefore, it may subsequently be rescinded without altering the judgment. In re Cadogan, Co. 110.

To sustain an indictment for conspiring by false oath, &c. the Ecclesiastical Court will, on prayer, order its officer to attend with the papers in the cause. Westmeath v. Westmeath, 2 Ad. 830.

(B) OF THE PETITION.

(a) In general.

The insolvent's husband was a convicted felon, and had been sentenced to fourteen years transportation, but was detained under an order of council at Portsmouth, on board the hulks. The insolvent had traded for some years on her own account, and bad some time before been declared a bankrupt, but she was in frequent communication with her husband: Held, that she must petition as a feme covert. In re Franks, Co. 135.

If an insolvent have at the time of his arrest two places of residence, one in London, and one in the country, more than 20 miles distant from the Court House in Portugal-street, both of which places of residence he uses indiscriminately, as it may suit his pleasure or convenience; and if he be arrested at his country residence, and remove himself by habeas corpus to a London prison, he may file his petition from the London prison and proceed to hearing and take his discharge in London. Seal's case, Co. 21.

Where the insolvent was arrested at his usual place of residence, at Chigwell, in Essex, which was not distant more than 20 miles from the Court House in Portugal-street, and was committed to Chelmsford gaol, and while there petitioned the Court for relief, and filed a schedule, but afterwards removed himself by habeas corpus to a London prison, he was allowed to file a new petition. In re Gabbitas, Co. 117.

When the affidavit for leave to file a petition is proved, on the hearing of the insolvent, to be false, or substantially defective, the Court will dismiss the petition. In re Thornhill, 1 Cress. 16.

Petition allowed to be amended, the error not being in favour of insolvent. In re Treble, 1 Cress.

11.

Lands and tenements not within the meaning of the 6th rule of Court. In re Arnott, 1 Cress. 76.

(b) Who may petition.

Leave given to file a petition, notwithstanding insolvent had been some years in custody, and had in the meantime disposed of all his property; such permission not determining the merits of the case. In re Ramsden, 1 Cress. 59.

Insolvents under attachments for non-payment of money, may petition. In re Philpott, 1 Cress. 12.

An insolvent's petition dismissed, he having gone out of the rules of the prison after filing his petition, his residence within the walls having been dispensed with on the plea of ill health. In re White, 1 Cress. 27.

(e) Contents.

Where the insolvent had been a bankrupt, and had obtained his certificate, some years before, but did not state this fact in his petition, it was dismissed, with leave to petition de novo, and to re-execute the schedule and other papers already filed. In re Dolbell, Co. 22.

So, where the insolvent was declared a bankrupt in November 1822, and had obtained his certificate in July 1824, and the petition stated the fact of the bankruptcy, but omitted to set forth that he had obtained his certificate, the petition was dismissed with similar leave. In re Noakes, Co. 22.

275

If the insolvent, on one petition being dismissed, proceed instanter to file a new petition, he must state the fact therein of his having filed the former petition. In re Walker, Co. 22.

Where the fact of bankruptcy was omitted to be stated in a petition, Commissioner Law dismissed only the order for hearing, and allowed the insolvent to amend, requiring him to serve notices again upon all his creditors. In re Lucas, Co. 23.

But the Court on consultation dismissed a petition, wherein a bankruptcy twenty years previous was omitted to be stated. In re Sherman, Co. 24.

A sequestration in Scotland, although similar to bankruptcy in England, not coming within the words of the act of parliament, need not be inserted in the petition. In re Hutton, 1 Cress. 104.

When an insolvent omits to set forth his name correctly, the Court will dismiss his petition. In re Forster, 1 Cress. 157.

The transposition of a christian name for a surname is not a sufficient ground for dismissing a petition. In re Wolff, 1 Cress. 138.

(d) Filing.

Semble-That it is not necessary to dismiss a petition filed under 53 Geo. 3, c. 102, before filing another petition under 7 Geo. 4, c. 57, s. 10. In re Bardouleau, Co. 27.

(C) OF THE ASSIGNMENT.

(a) Effect of.

Insolvent having petitioned, but discharging the debt, and not taking the benefit of the act, applies to the Court for books, papers, &c. to be delivered up to him, they having been filed in this court. In re Bruerton, 1 Cress. 9.

An assignment of the property of an insolvent debtor, under the statute 1 Geo. 4, c. 119, only transfers the property the insolvent was possessed of at the time of presenting his petition for his discharge, and does not pass any after-acquired property to his assignee. Hepper v. Marshall, 3 Law J. C.P. 45, s. c. 2 Bing. 372, s. c. 9 B. Mo. 710, s. c. 2 C. & P. 79.

A B, being possessed of a copyhold estate, agreed to surrender it to C D, but it had been by mistake previously conveyed to the trustees of E F.-A B afterwards became insolvent, and was discharged under the act; and after his discharge, the trustees of E F re-conveyed the premises to A B, who on the same day surrendered them to CD, who paid the purchase-money to G H on account of AB: Held, that the assignee of A B under the Insolvent Debtors Act might recover the money from G H, in an action for money had and received; but that the latter was entitled to deduct the amount of his bill of charges incurred in making the surrender. Twiss v. White, 4 Law J. C.P. 165, s. c. 3 Bing. 486.

The assignment to the provisional assignee of the Insolvent Debtors Court, is not made void by the death of the insolvent before his petition has been heard; and such provisional assignee may, after such death, assign to the assignee for the creditors; and they may bring actions in respect of the insolvent's property. Willis v. Elliott, sen., 3 C. & P. 117. [Best]

The lessor of the plaintiff had been discharged under the Insolvent Act, having previously made