1788.
niftration of juftice ; and might eventually prevent the transfer of lands, which it is the policy of this country to facilitate and encourage.
With refpect to the other objections;–the Court might give the Defendant leave to amend his pleas, fo as to remove the difficulty, which arifes from the affignment of the errors in fact. And, though the queftion on the extend of the warrant of Attorney, would require fome confideration,yet, it is a rule, that the acts of the parties, as well as acts of Parliament, fhall be liberally conftrued to promote the remedy. I have, therefore, no doubt, that if the Judgment had been entered in the Supreme Court of the ftate of New-Jerʃey, it would be deemed good there ; although that Court is not fimilar to the Court fpecifically named in the warrant. But it is unneceffary to pronounce any determination upon thefe points, as our opinion is unanimous, for the other reafons which have been mentioned.
Swiƒt fuggefted, that, as the Judgment had been entered coran non judice, the Plaintiff had been wantonly driven to bring the writ of Error, and, might, therefore, be entitled to cofts.
But, by M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice.–If you had moved the Court below, the fame decifion would have taken place ; and the act of Affembly is pofitive, that on the reverʃal here of a Judgement, each party fhall pay his own cofts. See 2 State Laws. 273 Sect. 7.
