1788.
On a rule to fhew caufe why the writ fhould not be quafhed, Moylan contended, that foreign attachments might be laid in any hands whatfoever; that in England they iffued out of an inferior Court, and, therefore, could not call money from a fuperior jurifdiction ; but that this reafon, which governed all the adverfe cafes determined there, did not apply under the law or practice of Pennʃylvania.
Cox, in fupport of the rule, obferved, that there are many inftances where attachments would not lie, befides the one mentioned by his opponent. A debt due by recovery on record, cannot be attached ; nor goods levied in execution by ƒieri ƒacias. Com. Dig. 424. nor property of a fovereign ftate: Nathan verƒus Virginia ant. 77. in not. But, he contended, that the mifchief would be intolerable, it the effects of one fuit could be thus drawn into perpetual litigation by another.
by the court.–The money is to be confidered in the fame ftate, as if it had been paid into the hands of the Sheriff. It a proceeding of this kind were allowed, there could be no end to fuits. We are unanimoufly of opinion, that the foreign attachment has iffued irregularly and ought to be quafhed.
The rule made abfolute.
HART et al. verʃus JAMES. 2 Actions.
T
HESE actions were brought upon three promiffory notes, two of which (included in one declaration) had been indorfed to the Bank; and the third was in the poffeffion of Meffrs. Hartʃhorne and Large, as a collateral fecurity from the Plaintiffs, for the payment of a debt amounting to nearly the fum mentioned in the note. In both actions judgments had been entered generally, on the 28th of April, 1788, with an agreement in each, that the quantum fhould be afcertained by a reference, and a report made to next term. The referees, however, were not appointed until the 8th of July, 1788, fix days after the commencement of the term, and they made no report until the 5th of Auguʃt following; when one report was made in favor of the Plaintiffs, for one fum, including what was due in both actions. On the 8th of Auguʃt the Plaintiff's applied for writs of execution; but, upon the Prothonotary's expreffing a doubt as to the manner of iffuing them, on account of this confolidation of the fumes in the report, the Plaintiff's prevailed on the referees feparately, and without the confent or knowledge of the Defendant, to fign the following explanatory certificate:– “ For the better explanation
“ of our report in the actions of John Hart and Chamleʃs Hart againft
“ Benjamin James, we find due to the Plaintiffs in the firft action the
“ fum of Ł325. 19. 5. and, in the fecond, the fum of
“ Ł 668. 2. 9.” — This certificate was filed on the 15th of Auguʃt, when writs of ʃicri ƒacias were taken out, without giving notice of the report to the Defendant ; who, however, accidentally heard of it, and on the 18th of Auguʃt, after the executions were iffued, befiled the following exceptions.
1. That
