Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/33

 22 

LAINTIFF brought an action of debt on an arbitration Bond in Bucks County, Common Pleas. Defendant pleaded null award. Plaintiff replied, and et forth an award. In September Term, 1775, Plaintiff got a rule for rejoinder in ix weeks, or judgment. Before the ix weeks expired, defendant’s attorney gave him a rejoinder, and, at the ame time, hewed him a , by which he intended to remove the caue to the next Supreme Court. Plaintiff, chuing that the proceedings hould go up above, as they were below, took out a , and, going into court the first day of the term, got it allowed—The next day the defendant preented the , to which plaintiff’s attorney objected, for that the record was removed by the —The Court below agreed to end up both writs, and let the Supreme Court receive the record on which they pleaed.

Now it came on to be argued, and the plaintiff’s council contended, that the record hould be received only on the '; Firt for that, when the other writ was preented, there was no record before the court, on which the ' could operate, and that the power of the court below was exercied. Secondly, that if that could not be allowed, yet both writs might be returned ; the ' might remove the caue, and the ' the body; and there was no inconitency in o doing.

The defendants council reted it on the advantage taken of him, and on the contant practice of the court with repect to writs of removal.

. Whenever a writ iuses fairly, if it is firt delivered it hall take preference—The proceedings, on a  are ; on a , the court proceed on the tate returned. Therefore, both writs cannot iue in the ame caue; for the court cannot proceed  and on the old record too; which upon the idea of returning both writ mut be done. In this cae, the defendant not having affected delay, but proceeded in the uual