Case ID: johns_2/html/0189-01.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

Bunn against Thomas and King, Administrators of Jeffery.
    A writ tested I8062and*ay' made return-17th May6 next, is a nul-Dot be'*1 Can amended.
    Mumford, for the defendants,
    moved to set aside the wr't ail(^ subsequent proceedings in this cause, for irregularity. The writ was issued in May last, tested the 12th day of May, 1808, and returnable on the 17th day of May next. The defendants indorsed their appearance. It was contended that as the writ was returnable in May, 1807, it was absolutely void.
    
      Gold, contra,
    prayed leave to amend the writ.
   Per Curiam.

As a term and more intervened between the teste and return of the writ, it is a mere nullity. The writ being absolutely void, the cause is out of court, and we cannot grant leave to amend in such a cause. ,

Rule granted. 
      
      
         3 Wil. 341. Parsons v. Lloyd. 2 Bl. Rep. 845.
     
      
       2 Ld. Ray. 775. Shirley v. Wright.
      
     
      
      [a] Though this is the law in respect to mesneprocess by arrest in personal actions, yet a writ of may be amended, where by mistake a term intervenes between the test and return. Jackson v. Crane, 1 Cow. 38.