1789.
had been inftituted againft him by Mr. Vanuxem, under the authority of a ʃpecial Letter of Attorney from the Plaintiff, who refided in one of the United States; that the day after judgment had been obtained, another perfon arrived with a general Power of Attorney from the Plaintiff, and that this perfon, without confulting Mr. Vanuxem, fettled with the Defendant, to whom he gave a general releafe in the name of his conftitutent. It appeared, alfo, that the latter Power of Attorney was only authenticated by proof of the hand writing of the party, and of the fubfcribing witneffes, before the Mayor of this city.
Lewis moved that the Defendant might be difcharged by virtue of the releafe.
Du Poncean objected, 1ft, That the authentication of the general Power of Attorney was not agreeably of the Act of Attorney was not agreeably to the Act of Affembly : and, 2dly, That a general power is not a revocation of a ʃpecial one.
Lewis anfwered, that the queftion was not, whether a general power is a revocation of the fpecial one; but whether it was a fufficient authority for granting the releafe. Of this, he faid, there could be not doubt ; and, with refpect to the mode of authentication, he obferved, that the Act of Affembly relates only to powers executed in a foreign country, and leaves the matter here to common law proof.
the court were of opinion, that the general power was fufficient for the purpofe of the releafe ; and, having directed the perfon acting under it, to enter an acknowledgment of fatisfaction on the record, they order the Plaintiff to be difcharged.
HOOTON verʃus WILL.
D
OMESTIC ATTACHMENT.––This caufe being removed by Certiorari from the Common Pleas, now came before the Court on the following Cafe, ftated for their opinion:
"The Term of September, in the Common Pleas for the county of
“ Philadelphia, in the year of our Lord 1782, began on the 4th day
“ of September, and on the 16th day of September, in the fame year,
“ Judgment was entered in the Court aforefaid, in an action then
“ depending at the fuit of the Plaintiff, above named, againft John
“ Levinz, which action had been brought to the term of June, in
“ the fame year. On the 5th day of the fame month of September,
“ a Domeʃtic Attachment iffued out of the fame Court, at the fuit of
“ John M‘Farland againft the faid John Levinz, and was ferved on
“ the lands of the Defendant on the fame day at 11 o'clock in the
“ morning. No auditors were ever appointed, nor any other
“ proceedings had, under the faid attachment, until a fimilar cafe was
“ftate for the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas for the county
“aforefaid, the 9th of November, in the year of our Lord
“ 1784.
