Case ID: johns_9/html/0386-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cramer against Van Alstyne.
    NEW YORK
    Oct. 1812.
    An execution of term^is not te^amendecí JRiter as to mesne process.
    
    RIKER, for the plaintiff, moved to amend the ca. sa. on file, in this case, by striking out the return day, the 16th August, and insertiug the 15th August, it having been made returnable, by mistake, out of term. He cited 4 Burr. 1187. 1 Cromp. Prac. 368. 1 Salk. 273. 1 Ld. Raym. 775, 776. 3 Wils. 341. 1 Johns. Cas. 31. 5 Johns. Rep. 163.
    
      Van Wyck, contra, contended, that the writ was void, and could, not be amended. He cited 2 Johns. Rep. 190. 4 Johns. Rep. 309. 2 Caines’ Rep. 63. 2 Salk. 7 00.
   Per Curiam.

The case of Campbell v. Gumming (2 Burr. 1187.) is in point. Where an exec.ulion is returnable out of term, it is not void, though liable to be set aside, on motion, for irregularity. It may, therefore, be amended, though it would be otherwise as to mesne process. We grant the rule to amend, on payment of costs.

Motion granted.