
    ENGLISH against REYNOLDS.
    Bythespe-cial wording' of the mo ' c^C16 & 1777 a final judgment in an oment, is eqiu-vaient to a fi-iml judgment casT/°And Debt will lie uponi#
    THIS was an Action of Debt brought upon a Jucfei ' ° “ J o i ment obtained in Rutherford County Court, upon an at-tac^ment taken out by Plaintiff v. Defendant, levied upon property which was not replevied 5 and not being suffi- . ' ’ v r , . , . , , to satisfy the judgment, this action was brought to reCover the balance. The Plaintiff produced the iudg- . t’■ r . j o ment of the County Court ; upon which the Jury gave a verdict for him. It is referred to the Supreme Court, Whether the iudgment taken upon the attachment is con- ■ . . r '■ . , . elusive, prima jacte, or any evidence. If it i conclusive, judgment to be for Plaintiff; if prima facie, or no evidence, then a New Tria} tp be granted.
    The case was submitted without argument.
   Daniel, J.

delivered the'Opinion of the Court:

The Act of Assembly of 1793, c. 16, % 8, makes it the duty of the Clerk op the return of an origina} attachment, “ to caSKe the same, by public advertisement, to be made known for three months next after the return made as aforesaid,’ and the Court cannot enter final judgment un-íil Ais species of notice is given. But when the Act is complied with, the judgment of the Court is final. This advertisement is in lieu of personal notice, ⅝« two nihils on a seine facias are considered notice. The Act of 177/ makes use of these words, “ Anv perspn whose estate is attached, may, by himself or agent, at any time before final judgment entered, or writ pf inquiry executed, upon giving special bail, replevy the estate sp attached and plead to issue.” From an examination of the above mentioned Acts of Assembly, it does appear to my mind, the Legislature considered a final judgment on an attachment in the same light as a final judgment in any other case.

Judgment for Plaintiff.  