
    Anthony Rodericks vs. William R. Payne.
    A plaintiff in replevin, is bound to file his declaration, and post his rule to plead within a year and day, as other plaintiffs.
    In this case, a writ of Replevin was issued on the 14tfe April, 1819 ; and on the 13th May following, the declaration was filed. No further proceedings were had until the 25th July, 1820, when a rule to plead was posted. The defendant did not plead, and on the 2d of September following, the plaintiff obtained an order for judgment. The case was then put on the writ of inquiry docket, and when called, a motion was made by the defendant to set aside the judgment, on the ground that more than a day and a year had intervened between the filing of the declaration and posting the rule to plead.
    This motion was sustained by the Circuit Court, and a motion was submitted to reverse the order of the Circuit Court, and to reinstate the case on the docket.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is not pretended that the plaintiff is not bound to post his rule to plead within the day and year from the filing of his declaration; but it is contended that a plaintiff in re-plevin so called, is in fact defendant, and therefore not bound by those rules which apply to plaintiffs generally. However different in some respects the plaintiff in re-plevin may be from plaintiffs generally, he must be governed by the same rules, when similarly situated. In filing his declaration and posting his rule to plead, there is no difference between them, and the same rules which govern in one case, extend to all. If the plaintiff in replevin were not bound to post his rule, neither would he be bound to declare, and if not bound to declare within a- fixed period; it is difficult to imagine how and when the suit would terminate.

The motion is refused.  