Case Name: Shoemaker versus Knorr
Court: Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1787-06
Citations: 1 Dall. 197
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shoemaker versus Knorr.
Judges: 
Reporter: Dallas
Volume: 1
Pages: 197–197

Head Matter:
Shoemaker versus Knorr.
JUDGMENT. Fi. Fa. returned, and Vend. Exp. to Dec. Term, 1786, returned by the Sheriff, “Proceedings staid by the Plaintiff.” The Sheriff afterwards made sale of the premisses, and the Plaintiff took a precipe from his Attorney, for an Al. Vend. Exp. returnable to March Term 1787, but before the return day of the term, the sale had been made, although the precipe was not delivered, and no writ made out till after the term, when the Prothonotary, on the application of the Sheriff, issued an alias Vend. Exp. returnable to June Term.
It was now moved to alter the Teste and return, by the precipe; that is, to make the writ returnable at March, instead of June Term.
Sergeant, the Defendant’s Attorney on record, did not oppose the motion, but declared, that as his authority was determined by the Judgment, his consent could not be obligatory on his client.
Kawle for the Plaintiff.—Sergeant for the Defendant.

Opinion:
The Court,
after some deliberation, granted leave to make the alteration moved for; resting, it seemed, upon the ground that the precipe furnished something to amend by.