COMMON PLEAS, Philadelphia
County:
MURDOCK verʃus WILL.
T
HIS was an action againft the late Sheriff for taking infufficient fureties on a replevin bond ; and the PRESIDENT, in his charge to the Jury, laid down the following pofitions.
1. That, as the law gives the remedy of a diftrefs to a landlord, it is incumbent upon the Sheriff to fee that the fecurity is good, before he returns the property on a replevin.
2. That evidence of a vague report of the furety's being in good circumftances is not fufficient to repel the proof made by the Plaintiff, that his circumftances were bad at the time of the replevin.
3. That the value of the diftrefs, at the time of the replevin, and not the amount of the rent due, is the proper meafure of damages in this action.
4. That, therefore, the goods diftrained ought (although a contrary practice has prevailed) to be valued before they are delivered on a replevin.
Verdict for the Plaintiff for the value of the goods diftrained.
INGLES verʃus BRINGHURST.
I
NDEBITATUS Aʃʃumpʃit for money laid out and expended &c The cafe was this.– The Plaintiff, Ingles, had a houfe in the diftrict of Southwark, againft the wall of which one Waters had erected another houfe. Waters becoming infolvent, his houfe,on
the
