Case ID: root_1/html/0497-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Select v. Olmstead.
    That which is necessarily implied need not be expressed.
    Action brought against the executor for rates due from his testator.
    Plea in abatement —■ That there is a material variance between the original writ and the copy left in service; for that it is averred in the original writ that the rates due from the deceased were £13 Ids., and that in said copy there is no such averment.
    The plaintiff replied — That said writ was legally served on the defendant by reading — without that that it was no otherwise served than by said copy.
    The defendant rejoined —■ That said writ was not legally served on him by reading. Issue to the court.
    The writ was dated the 30th of December A. D. 1192 and made returnable to the County Court to be holden in March then next; the officer’s indorsement returned upon the writ was, that on the 30th of December he served said writ by reading it in the defendant’s hearing, omitting the year.
   The court found that it was legally served on the defendant by reading; for although, the officer in his return has omitted the year it is necessarily implied, as no other December intervened, between the date of the writ and the return day.