Case ID: yeates_2/html/0162-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Miller and William Miller plaintiffs in error against George Spreeher.
    Writ óf error will not lie, on tlie dissolution of a foreign attachment by the court below; nor on many summary proceedings, as discharging a defendant on common bail, moderating bail, &c.
    Writ of error to Cumberland county. The plaintiffs issued a foreign attachment against the defendant to October term 1792. Thomas Weistar issued a domestic attachment against him to April term 1793, and obtained a rule to show cause why the first attachment should not be set aside. On the 30th September 1793, the court on argument, dissolved the foreign attachment. Certain depositions accompanied the record, showing that the defendant lately before lived and kept store in the county of Cumberland, and occasionally had traded to Virginia; and that at the time of levying the foreign attachment, his store aforesaid was actually kept open.
    The court expressed their doubts, whether the writ of error was maintainable in the present case.
    Messrs. Thomas and Finney, for the plaintiffs.
    The plaintiffs are without remedy, unless this court will re-examine the judgment below; it only can be reviewed in this mode. Wherever the record is complete, error will lie. Cro. El. 636. Ca. Lit. 288 b. 11 Co. 41. a. The dissolution of the foreign attachment is a final judgment, and precludes the plaintiffs from proceeding in their suit. The act of 1721, “ for establishing courts of judicature in this province, ” gives this court Ci full power to examine and correct all and all manner of errors of the justices and magistrates of. this province, in their judgments, process and proceedings in the áMd courts, ” &c., which words seem sufficiently general and comprehensive to include the case now in'question.
    The court stopped Mr. Rawle, who was proceeding on the part of the defendant; and said, they were fully satisfied the writ of error would not lie.
    There are many summary proceedings, on which error is not maintainable, as in the cases of a judge or court discharging a defendant on common bail, moderating bail on a cwpias and receiving the justification of bail, &e. So in the case of a priviledged person held to bail on an arrest. Suppose the Court of Common Pleas should make a most material alteration, instead of an amendment, in the record, and take no notice thereof in their proceedings, what remedy would the party injured have ? If a ship going to sea was attached, and the attachment dissolved for want of showing good cause of bail in pursuance whereof she leaves the port, is the cause of action inquirable into in the superior court ? A. number of similar instances may be put, where injustice might possibly happen, and yet the party be without remedy, in the usual constitution of the courts. The same point was determined in this court some years ago between Baron v. lloare, and we see no reason for adopting a different decision in the present case.
   Writ of error quashed.

Smith, J. gave no opinion, having determined the case as president of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county.