440
CASES ruled and adjudged &c.
1789.
Levy oppofed the admiffion of this teftimony, and contended that no evidence could be received to contradict the Sherrif's return. See 12 Mod. 424. T. Raym. 485 7. 2Mod. 10.11. Cro. E. 872. pl.o.
Sergeant, in reply, admitted, that fome returns of the fherriff could not be tranverfed ; but, he contended, that the return of Elongatur was not of that clafs. See. 12 Mod. 426.
the court over-ruled the evidence.
A queftion then arofe, Whether the Jury could include the cofts which had accrued on the Replevin, in their verdict in the prefent action. And the court were clearly of opinion, that they could, and ought to do fo.[♦]
Conformably to which was the verdict of the Jury.
ADAMS verʃus LA COME.
R
EPLEVIN. The material queftion, on the trial of this caufe, was, Whether the goods of a ʃtranger, being removed from the premiffes before a diftrefs, could be purfued and feized, within the thirty days, which the Act of Affembly allows for purfuing and feizing the goods of the Tenant? See 1 State Laws, 433, &c.
SHIPPEN,Preʃident, in the charge to the Jury, delivered it as the clear opinion of the Court, that the right of purfuing and feizing goods after their removal, was confined to the goods of the Leffee, from whom the rent was really due ; and that the goods of a ftranger could only be diftrained while they were on the premiffes.
SUPREME
[♦]Sergeant having fuggefted, that both the points in this cafe, had been otherwife determined in a cafe of Jackʃon v.Webb ; Mr. Preʃident SHIPPEN faid, that the motion was there left upon equitable circumftances to the Court.