Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/48

 8Q F£S£BAIi SEPOBTEB. �people of ihe state, and one-Half tô the party grieved thereby. By the tenth section of the: act ità: application is restricted to BuitBwhere the penalty is^rfey statiute, gi*eii to any person suing for the same. Jones y. Varick, R. Y. Laws, 1S8. This law continued in force at the time of the ;r€vi8ion of the laws in 1813. 1 Eev. Laws. N. Y. 99, 103. It waa expressly repealed upon the enactment of the Eeyised Statutes. 3 Eev. St. (2d Ed.) 149, I have. not. been able to discover that before the passage of the Eevised Stakites it had been modi- fied, It will be observed .that in inoorpojating the act of 1788 into the Eevised Statutes the provision ais to indorse- ment was changed. Instead of an indorsement of the title of the'statute giving the penalty, the indorsement to bejnade is a general reference to the statute, and in the foUowing fqrm : "According to the provisioris of the statute regulating the rate ofinterest on money," etc.j as the case may require, or in some other general terras referring to such statute. This change is more apparent than real. By embodying ail gen- erai laws then in force in a few new acts, constituting together the Eevised Statutes, each of these new acts embracing a great number of existing prior statutes, a reference in the indorsement to the title of the new act would not give the information designed by the act of 178-8 to be conveyed to the defendant Bued. Instead, thei'efore, of referring to the title, the new provision is, in substance, that reference shall be made to that portion of the Eevised Statutes in which the the former act re-appears, or to such other statute as might subsequently be enacted under which the action is brought. The penalties on the clerk for issuing such defective process, and on the plaintifE for suing it out, seem not to have been re-enacted in the Eevised Statutes ; at least, I have not been able to discover them there. But the requirement of an in- dorsement was still continued, and has never been repealed. Having reference to the origin of this requirement, and the title and provisions of the law of 1788 by which it appears to have originated, .and espeoially the penalties imposed for a failure thua to indorse the process, it is seen that by that law the suing out of such process was an unlawful act, a statutory ����