1789.
Levy opposed the admission of this testimony, and contended that no evidence could be received to contradict the Sherrif's return. See 12 Mod. 424. T. Raym. 485 7. 2Mod. 10.11. Cro. E. 872. pl.o.
Sergeant, in reply, admitted, that some returns of the sherriff could not be tranversed ; but, he contended, that the return of Elongatur was not of that class. See. 12 Mod. 426.
the court over-ruled the evidence.
A question then arose, Whether the Jury could include the costs which had accrued on the Replevin, in their verdict in the present action. And the court were clearly of opinion, that they could, and ought to do fo.[1]
Conformably to which was the verdict of the Jury.
ADAMS verſus LA COME.
R
EPLEVIN. The material question, on the trial of this cause, was, Whether the goods of a stranger, being removed from the premisses before a distress, could be pursued and seized, within the thirty days, which the Act of Assembly allows for pursuing and seizing the goods of the Tenant? See 1 State Laws, 433, &c.
SHIPPEN,President, in the charge to the Jury, delivered it as the clear opinion of the Court, that the right of pursuing and seizing goods after their removal, was confined to the goods of the Lessee, from whom the rent was really due ; and that the goods of a stranger could only be distrained while they were on the premisses.
- ↑ Sergeant having suggested, that both points in this case had been otherwise determined in a case of Jackson v. Webb; Mr President Shipppen said, that the matter was there left upon equitable circumstances to the court.
