Case ID: johns_4/html/0309-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Burk against Barnard.
    A void writ cannot be amended.
    LYNCH, for the plaintiff, moved to amend the capias se? respondendum in this cause, which was sued out on the 15th April last, and returnable at this term, and the defendant arrested thereon. The writ was tested by mistake in the year 1808, instead of the year 1809. He cited Carty v. A.silly ^ as a case in point. ,
    
      H. Bleecker, contra,
    contended, that the writ was a nullity, and that where process is void, it cannot be amended, and relied on the case of Bunn v. Thomas & King.
      
    
    
      
       2 Black. Rep. 918.
    
    
      
       2 Johns. Rep. 190.
    
   Per Curiam.

It was decided in the case of Bunn v. Thomas & King, that where a term or more intervenes between the teste and return of a writ, it is a nullity, and that where a writ is void, it cannot be amended. The motion must be denied.

Rule refused.