Case ID: dc_2/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Muncaster v. J. Mason and W. Jones.
    If the plaintiff has countermanded his execution at the request of the defendant to give him time, or if he has been delayed by injunction obtained by the defendant, he may take out a new execution after the expiration of the year and day.
    Rule to show cause why four executions, in favor of Muncas-ter against Mason and Jones, should not be quashed, because issued more than a year and day after judgment.
    
      Mr. E. J. Lee, for the plaintiff,
    showed for cause, as to two of the executions, thatthe plaintiff had been delayed by injunction obtained by the defendant, Mason, and finally dissolved under a mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States ; and as to the two other executions, that the plaintiff’ had issued his executions in due time, but had countermanded them at the particular solicitation of the defendant. See Mitchell v. Cue and wife, 2 Burr. 660 ; Phillipps v. Lowndes, in this Court, December term, 1805, (1 Cranch, C. C. 283); Craig v. Johnson, Hardin’s Rep. 521.
    
      Mr. Key, contra,
    
    cited Winter v. Lightbound, Str. 301; Booth 
      v. Booth, 1 Salk. 322 ; S. C. 6 Mod. 288; Salmon v. Yeates, 1 Har. & Johns. 488.
   The Court

(Morsell, J., contra,)

upon the authority of the cases cited by Mr. Lee, refused to quash the executions, upon the ground that the first executions had been countermanded at the request of the defendant, and by way of indulgence. (See also the ease of Noland v. Cromwell's Lessee, 6 Mun. 185, 187.)