
    Wentworth against Barnum.
    NEW YORK,
    May, 1813.
    In an action !ce°,lCa “prior defendantthe against the a justice,being bar°underth“ statute, it makes no difference whe■was commen- or"" marrant._ “
    
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Barnum d Wentworth, before the justice, by a warrant taken out on bis oath. He declared for work and labour, &c. and on a special agreement for threshing wheat. The defendant pleaded that before the issuing of the warrant in the cause, he had comd an action of trespass on the case, by summons, against Barnum, and which had been returned personally served. The . plaintiff replied that his suit was by warrant, on oath, &c. The justice decided that as the warrant was issued on oath, as re-ti statute, and the plaintiff still insisted that he was afraid of losing his debt if delay was made, the plaintiff ought not to be nonsuited, and overruled the defendant’s plea, and proceeded t® try the cause, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff; by his replication, admitted the truth of the plea of a prior suit commenced against him by the defendant, which, according to the settled construction of the sta~ tute, is a good and sufficient bar to the action; and whether such suit be by warrant or summons, can make no difference. (1 Johns. Rep. 283.) The judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  