Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/103

 Sururtn Coun? or Puujylvnnin. gy provedtobedead orabfentbeyo¤d_thereachofthe proeefsof :787. the Court, the prhof of their hand-writing would be admitted; bark;) or, if that was not pnétieahle, proof of the handwriting of j the obligor mix: be fatisfaftory. But thefe eireumliancee do E rtotoecnr on prefenroeealion;anda•farastl1e teltimony ’ ofL••g/hqfgoes,iti•calcnlatedtoindnoeabeliefdutthere ` •a•,in ia&, no fealing and deliveryof the inltnnnent. It is i not, tbcrefore,ptuved as aedeed; and,in my opinion, it ought · 2 nottobelefttothejuryneametnotnndnm. '_ Abillofexceptton` waatakento the ' 'ou of theConrt, but never profecutnd. · — cpm . 1 ' is - April Term, 1 78-7. E Coexsnofs Lellee on-fu: Houma. l · h ]E.C‘I‘MENT. The demife laid in the declaration ha ’ I E expired, duringthe pendency of the aélitm, Cwkbzg I moved for leavetoamend by infertingthe word ¢1u¢u4*y,_ inilead · V nffeun, f0I$N)¢II1ll’g¢dRt¢I'IIltADdh¢¢i(¢dc0¤@·84[•4 ‘ - Burr. 2448. - _ » Levi: was about to reply, when the Cmnt jusrtcs obferved, ` that the point was not only decided by the Euglyb authorities, ‘ but by a recent adjudication in this Court. Br me Comrr :—Let the amendment be allowed on payq · ment of colis. _- Pmucu verfus Buck': Erecutntt. OREIGN attachment; A rule was obtained to {hed caufe /6i9J€ why the foreign attachment lhould no: be qualhed : And r e only quellion dnfculied on the arglrmcnt war, whether a foreign attachment would lie agaigrfi an executor ?_ Af. ·

�