We  are  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  the  writ  of  possession  waa  not  executed
before  the.  service  of  the  injimotion,  or  in  other  words*  that  in  a  legal  and
proper  sense  it  waa  not  executed  at  alL"

In  the  case  of  Newell  v.  Whigham,  euprOt  the  deputy  sheriff  having  the
writ  went  to  the  premises*  and  notified  the  person  in  posseesion  of  his  busi-
ness; he  did  not  enter  the  house  cm  the  premises,  but  reached  in  and  took  a
chair  and  set  it  out,  and  went  off^  It  did  not  appear  that  the  chair  waa  re-
moved from  the  premises,  'and  the  family  of  the  person  in  possession  were
snd  remained  in  the  actual  occupation.  It  did  not  appear  that  any  person
was  put  in  possession  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  or  that  there  was  any  at-
tornment. The  sheriff  returned  that  he  had  executed  the  writ  by  delivering
possession  to  the  plaintiff.  It  waa  held  that  the  evidence  did  not  justify  a
finding  that  the  writ  had  been  executed.  Rapallo,  J.,  who  delivered  the
opinion  of  the  oourt,  said:  *'The  ordinary  rule  in  regard  to  the  execution  of
a  writ  of  possession  is,  that  the  plaintiff  must  be  put  into  full  and  complete
possession;  that  the  possession  to  be  given  by  the  sheriff  is  a  full  and  actual
possession,  and  that  where  the  plaintiff  is  put  into  possession  nnder  cironm-
stances  plainly  intimating  that  such  possession  is  but  formal  and  momentaiy,
and  he  is  accordingly  ousted  on  the  same  day,  snch  putting  into  possession
is  insufficient,  and  that  the  writ  of  possession  will  not  be  regarded  as  fully
executed  until  the  sheriff  and  his  officers  are  gone,  and  the  plaintiff  is  left  in
quiet  poesession.*'

An  examination  of  the  foregoing  authorities  showa  what  ia  necessaiy  to
oonstitnte  a  valid  and  complete  execution  of  a  writ  of  possession.  It  is,  how*
ever,  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  nothing  short  of  an  actual  removal  of  the
defendant  or  his  property  from  the  premises  will  constitute  a  complete  exe-
ention  of  the  writ.  If  the  defendant,  ceasing  to  hold  in  hostility  to  the
plaintiff  yields  up  the  possession  to  him,  acquiesces  in  hia  title,  and  agraea
to  hold  in  subordination  to  it,  this  will  be  a  good  service  of  the  writ,  without
an  actual  expulsion  or  removal:  Freeman  on  Executions,  seo.  474;  Smith  v.
