Case Name: SMITH v. BARNCASTLE
Court: Philadelphia District Court
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1837-03-30
Citations: 2 Miles 74
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMITH v. BARNCASTLE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases determined in the district court for the city and county of Philadelphia
Volume: 2
Pages: 74–75

Head Matter:
SMITH v. BARNCASTLE.
March 30, 1837.
Rule to show cause why the fieri facias should not be set a,side.
The act of 16th June, 1836, relating to executions, which provides that the stay of execution shall be computed from the first day of the term to which the suit is brought, does not repeal the first section of the act of 28th March, 1835, which directs that the stay shall be counted from the return day of the original process.
THIS action was brought to September term, 1836, returnable on the October return day. After judgment, defendant entered security for stay of execution for six months. The plaintiff issued a fieri facias to March term, 1837, six months having elapsed counting from the first Monday of September, 1838, but there was not a lapse of that time counting from the return day of the original writ.
Defendant obtained this rule to show causa
Taylor, for the rula
Fallon, contra.
It was contended by defendant’s counsel that the cessel ran from the 1st Monday of October, 1837, under the act of 28th March, 1835, § 1, which directs that the stay of execution shall count from the return day of the original process. ::
The plaintiff’s counsel contended that by the act of 16th June, 1836, the stay of execution should be computed from the first day of the term to which the action was brought

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The act of 1836, relating to executions, has no repealing clause either express or qualified. The provision in question is not so inconsistent with the aet of 1835 that both cannot stand together. The provision of the act of 1835 is restricted to this court, and is adapted to its peculiar system of monthly return days. The section of the act of 1836 refers to the general organization of the courts of the commonwealth. By applying each clause to its appropriate object, entire harmony of construction is preserved. So far from being repugnant, each clause has full scope for its proper operation. The rule " quod posteriores leges priores contrarias abrogante does not apply. The fieri facias must be set aside.
Rule absolute.