
    Davis versus Hood.
    Where it is apparent from the record that there is no error, the writ may he quashed before the return day.
    Error to tbe District Court, Philadelphia.
    
    This was the case of a judgment entered in the Prothonotary’s office, Philadelphia, in favor of Hood to the use of Todd vs. Davis. It was entered on a judgment bond for the payment of $390,38; $200 had been paid on account before the entry of judgment. Judgment was entered for the $390,38, and credit for the $200 indorsed on the fi.fa. The judgment bond contained the usual stipulation for a release of errors.
    
    Defendant took a writ of error.
    The return day of this writ had not arrived.
    • William M. Dull, Esq., brought the writ into court and moved to quash it.
   The court, April 20th, said that the manner in which the judgment had been entered, was right, and the writ of error was quashed, it being apparent from the record that there was no error in the matter.  