Shoemaker v. Knorr

by Supreme Court of the United States

1787.

SHOEMAKER verʃus KNORR.

J

UDGMENT. Fi.Fa. returned, and Vend. Exp. to Dec. Term, 1786, returned by the Sheriff, ‘‘Proceedings ftaid by the Plaintiff.’’ The Sheriff afterwards made fale of the premiffes, and the Plaintiff took a precipe from his Attorney, for an Al. Vend. Exp. returnable to March Term 1787, but before the return day of the term, the fale had been made, although the precipe was not delivered, and no writ made out till after the term, when the Prothonotary, on the application of the Sheriff, iffued an alias Vend. Exp. returnable to June Term.

It was now moved to alter the Taʃte and return, by the precipe ; that is, to make the writ returnable at March inftead of June Term.

Sergeant, the Defendant's Attorney on record, did not oppofe the motion, but declared, that as his authority was determined by the Judgment, his confent could not be obligatory on his client.

the court, after fome deliberation, granted leave to make the alteration moved for ; refting, it feemed, upon the ground that the precipe furnifhed fomething to amend by.

Rawle for the Plaintiff.–Sergeant for the Defendant.