
    CRAIG vs. SAVEN.
    
    
      April 30th.
    
    The return on a capias to au-thorife an attachment ihould be in the form prefcribed by ]aw- — See a£ts of 1796-7! p-22, § l6, 1 Brad 223, and Irons *us. Allcr.y
    
    It is erroneous to iffue an execution on a judgment founded on fuch attachment, without having firft legally diipo'ed ©f the attached •ifetls.
    THIS was a writ of error brought to reverse a judgment of the court of quarter sessions of Gallatin. The return on the original capias was “ A copy left at the last place of residence of defendant on which an attachment issued, and was executed on a bay mare. Judgment was obtained by default; and an execution issued against the defendant, without any disposition being made of the property attached. This execution was levied on other property of the defendant’s, which he replevied, and then sued out this writ of error.
    
      
       The ¿efeníiaiu’í name is written Saburn in the order book»
    
   Opinion of the Court. — There are two errors in the proceedings on this suit. Judgment was obtained and a general execution levied on the estate of Craig, without releasing his goods which had been attached, or their having been replevied by him, or an order having been made for their sale. And there is a previous error ■ — the sheriff’s return on the original writ did not authorize an attachment; which, conformably to the principle recognised this term in the case Irons vs. Allen, should have been, that “the defendant is not found within his bailiwick.”

Judgment reversed.  