Case Name: Jonathan Cory against Lawrence Lewis
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1820-05
Citations: 5 N.J.L. 846
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Jonathan Cory against Lawrence Lewis.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 976–977

Head Matter:
*Jonathan Cory against Lawrence Lewis.
ON ATTACHMENT.
If clerk neglectto tise the attaohment, termCthe writ will not líe ' wher^the ' been regular
THE writ of attachment was returnable to December pgjo 0f the Court of Common Pleas of Morris; at ’ ’ term, the defendant in attachment, was three Ihnes called, and made default, his default recorded, and auditors were appointed by the said court. At March 4erm, application was made in behalf of John Wade, JepBaldwin, and others, to be admitted creditors of the said Lewis, under the attachment; and they were admitted accordingly. The auditors, appointed at the last term, did not make their report; and one of them having removed out of the county of Morris, to the county of Essex; the court, upon application, made in behalf of the plaintiff in attachment, appointed another auditor in his place,
The defendant then filed special bail; and thereupon, by his counsel, moved the court to set aside the said attachment, and the proceedings thereon, because the clerk of the court had omitted to advertise the said attachment, according to the directions of the act of the legislature; and there did not appear to have been any advertisement, whatsoever, made, of the said writ of attachment.
After hearing the arguments of counsel, this court ordered and adjudged, for the reasons assigned by the defendant’s counsel, that the writ of attachment, and all proceedings thereon had, be vacated, set aside, and for nothing liolden.
Upon application, in behalf of the plaintiff, the court made and allowed, a state of the case, containing the above facts ; and a certiorari was brought.
Vanarsdale and Halsey, argued
: that the decision of the Common Pleas, was against law ; and read Pat. 296, sec. 16, 15, and 32. 2 Bin. 453,. and 5 Bin. 389.
Attorney-General and Chetwood, answered:
and relied on the 15th and 16th sections of the statute, Pat. 296.
Taylor vs. Woodward, 5 Hal. 4. Ayres vs. Bartlel, 2 Gr. 332. Gaddis ads. Howell, 2 Vr. 315.
Anonymous, 1 Har. 355.

Opinion:
The court
reversed the judgment of the Pleas ; and directed the cause to be continued, and further proceedings to be had in this court.