Case ID: us_11/html/0277-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BLACKWELL v. PATTEN and others.
    a wm ofer„^rarteste tf the Februaami may be standing the intervention.ai the August terrei betu *-eii return*3of 'the writ.
    
      JONES, for the Defendants in error, moved this Court to dismiss the writ of error, because it bore teste .of February term, 1Ú10, was issued in September, 1810, and was .returnable to February terpi, 1811, whereas.it ought to have been tested of Jlugust term, 1810. The Plain.tiff in error, aware of this objection, has sued out anbther writ of errory which stand# on a subsequent part of thd docket. ‘
    
      Campbeir, <wi the sarme side. August term is as much a, term for teste and return of writs as February term. Suppose the,wrifc'bore teste ten years ago: it,might as be made returnable to February term, 1811, as this writ which bore teste of February term, 1810. If of February term, 1810, it ought to' have been returnable to -August term, 1810, and not to February > tC-Fíiíj ASIA*
    The appearance of the Defendants in error only cures the want of a. citation, not a fault in the writ of error itself.
    
      March 14th....
    
    
      All the Judges being present,
   The Court refused to quash' or dismiss the writ of error on account of the irregularity of its teste.