
    Mackey v. Fuqua.
    [October Term, 1800.]
    Supersedeas — Notice.—what notice of a writ of supersedeas is sufficient, when tbe defendant is not found.
    The writ of supersedeas in this case was returned b3 the sheriff a copyleft; and the questions were, whether, this return was sufficient to enable the plaintiff to proceed to a hearing? or whether actual service, on the defendant was necessary?
    Call for the plaintiff.
    Notice to the defendant is all that is necessary; and leaving a copy was sufficient, for that purpose.
    Randolph contra.
    The same notice ought to be given, as is required, by the act of Assembly, in other cases. That is to sa3, it ought either to have been personal, or left with some white person above the age of sixteen, at the dwelling house of the defendant.
   The Court took time to consider, and then made the following order.

*“The Court being of opinion, that in giving notice of the writ awarded at the last Court, the sheriff ought to have pursued the mode prescribed by the act of Assembly, for giving notice upon replevy bonds and other lawful occasions (which does not appear to have been observed, from his general return of a copy left.) On the motion of the plaintiff, by his counsel, another writ of supersedeas in awarded him, returnable here at the next Court.”  