Case Name: WILLIAM BROWN v. TIMOTHY ABBOTT Jr.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1838-02
Citations: 16 N.J.L. 319
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM BROWN v. TIMOTHY ABBOTT Jr.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 319–321

Head Matter:
WILLIAM BROWN v. TIMOTHY ABBOTT Jr.
On Certiorari to a Justice of the peace, on attachment.
An attachment issued from this Court, supersedes one previously issued oy a justice of the peace: and the quashing the writ issued from this Court, does not revive the proceedings before the justice. He can neither issue execution, nor render judgment in the cause thus commenced before him.
This cause was submitted to the Court, on the following,
STATE OF THE CASE.
The suit before the justice, was commenced by Abbott, by writ of attachment against Brown, as a non-resident debtor. The affidavit was made upon the eleventh of April A. D. 1837, and the attachment was served — on the same day, by attaching the defendant’s property.
On the same eleventh day of April, a writ of attachment issued out of the Supreme Court of New-Jersey, at the suit of James Hoy junior, against the same defendant, which was served on the thirteenth day of the same month. Both attachments were levied on the same property.
On the ninth day of May 1837, after the service of the writ of attachment issued out of the Supreme Court, the Justice proceeded to render judgment in the cause pending before him (pro ut the transcript.)
At the term of September 1837, the writ of attachment issued out of this Court, at the suit of James Hoy was “ quashed an ;1 made void” as having been “ illegally and improvidently issued.” (ante 157) and the Court ordered that the defendant Brown, should be restored to all that had been attached or taken by virtue of said writ pro ut the rule. After the quashing of the said writ, the Justice issued an execution upon the judgment by him rendered, (pro ut the execution.)
It is agreed between the attorneys of the respective parties, that this cause be submitted to the Court, upon the foregoing statement of facts, and if the Court shall be of opinion that the Justice might lawfully proceed to render the said judgment and that his proceeding in the premises was lawful, (waiving all in-formalities and technical objections) that the judgment of the said J ustice be affirmed without costs, otherwise that the said judgment be reversed — without costs.
Henry W. Green, attorney of plaintiff.
James Wilson, attorney of defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
By the 34th section of the statute, (Rev. Laws, 363) it is declared, that an attachment out of this Court, or a Court of Common Pleas, shall be a supersedeas to all attachments issued by a Justice of the peace, undetermined at the time of serving such writ. In the case stated, it appears, that the Justice proceeded to judgment, after the attachment at the suit of Hoy, in this Court, had been served. The judgment must therefore be reversed. The Justice had no right to proceed to judgment. His authority was at an end. Nor did the subsequent decision of this Court setting aside the attachment issued out of the same, revive the suit before the Justice. Even if the judgment had been entered by the Justice before the attachment out of this Court had been served, he could not after the latter writ had been quashed, have issued execution on such judgment. But in this case, there was no lawful judgment on which execution could be issued. Both the judgment and execution must therefore be reversed and set aside.
Judgment reversed cmd execution set aside.