1788.
Lawrence propofed reading fome cafes to fhew, that the authority given to the Referees by the act of the parties, ought to have been ftrictly purfued.
But, by the court:–There would have been fomething equitable in the objection to the report, if only two of the Referees had met; but, as it appears that they all entered on the bufinefs, though only two of them have fubfcribed the report, we can confider nothing but the evident miftake of the Clerk ; and, for that reafon alone,
THOMPSON verʃus YOUNG.
O
N a rule to fhew caufe why an Exoneretur fhould not be entered on the Bail-piece, it appeared, that the Defendant was a refident of Maryland (though he came occafionally to Philadelphia upon bufinefs) and was duly difcharge under the infolvent law of that State. Upon the authority of Millar verʃus Hall, ant. 229. the rule was made abfolute.
Sergeant and Ingerʃoll, for the Plaintiff, attempted to eftablifh this diftinction, that, in Millar verʃus Hall, the Defendant was a citizen of Maryland, and that the money, for which the action was brought, had been received in Baltimore; but that in this cafe, Young, though fometimes in Maryland, was, in fact, a citizen of Pennʃylvania, and that the debt was contracted here. They acknowledged, however, after the examination of the witneffes, that they had failed in their proof ; and, therefore, no argument was made in fupport of the diftinction.
WHITESIDE verʃus OAKMAN.
T
HIS was a Foreign Attachment returnable to December Term 1787, in which Judgment had been entered agreeably to the act of Affembly.
Ingerʃoll now moved for a rule to fhew caufe, why the attachment fhould not be quafhed ; obferving, that it the fame thing might be done in a circuitous manner, he fuppofed it could not, in this way, be deemed too late: For, upon entering fpecial bail, the Plaintiff might be called on to fhew caufe of action ; and attachments are often fet afide where no caufe is fhewn.
SHIPPEN,Preʃident. – It is very late to move for a rule of this nature. If there is a miftake in the proceedings, but not on the merits, to fhew the caufe of action may be required, after fpecial bail is entered. We fhould be afraid, however, of introducing fo dangerous a practice as would be countenanced by granting the prefent motion.
