
    Grubb against Fox.
    Sunbury, Saturday, June 18.
    is MtYsuperse-01' deas to proceed-Son Pleas, °^~ 3ndtenant.ndl°rd
    IN ERROR.
    T-^" proceedings before a landlord and tenant’s court, the X plaintiff in error obtained possession of certain premises, of which the defendant was tenant. These proceedings were reversed in the Common Pleas of Northumberland on the 19th of January last, and on the same day, this writ of error was sued out, security entered, and notice immediately given to the opposite party. On the same day also a writ of restitution and nf.fa. for costs were issued, under which the costs were levied, and possession restored to the tenant.
    
      Hall for the plaintiff in error,
    now moved for á writ of restitution to reinstate Mr. Grubb in the possession, upon the ground that the writ of error was a supersedeas to proceedings in the Common Pleas. Moorfoot v. Chivers 
      
      , Curd v. Eastmeed 
      
      .
    
    
      Greenough and Watts contra.
    Proceedings under the landlord and tenant law, are sui generis: their object is summarily to give the possession, without being obstructed by writs of error or certiorari, and of course to restore a possession in the same manner, where in any stage of the case it has been illegally ousted. It has been held that a certiorari¿ to the justices is no supersedeas; Anon. 4 Dali. 214; though in a common case the law is otherwise, 2 Com. Dig. 23. E. Certiorari. The law must be the saíne with a writ of error.
    
      Duncan in reply. On general principles this writ of error ■was a supersedeas, and there is nothing peculiar in this kind of case. When the proceedings come to the Common Pleas, they assume a new appearance, and become a common law proceeding. This is a judgment of a court of common law, removed here by writ of error. A certiorari is a different thing. It removes proceedings, not according to the- course of the common law.
    
      
       8 Mod. 373.
    
    
      
       1 Barnes 260.
    
   Tilghman C. J.

delivered the judgment of the Court, Yeates J. declining to give any opinion on account of his connection with the plaintiff in error.

The usual effect of a certiorari, is to stay the proceedings of the inferior jurisdiction; such likewise is the usual effect of a writ of error. But it has been settled, that in cases between landlord and tenant the certiorari shall not stay proceedings, the act of assembly intending to give landlords a speedy remedy. In order to preserve uniformity of principle, and to do equal justice to landlord and tenant, the writ of error should have no greater force than the certiorari. It might be presumed in the first instance, that the landlord was entitled to the possession, because the jury found so. But now that the first proceedings are reversed by the Court of Common Pleas, the presumption is in favour of the tenant. Had not the Court considered this as a case sui generis, the tenant would never have lost the possession, because the certiorari would have protected him. By allowing the writ of error no greater force than the certiorari, we place both parties on an equal footing, and of course do equal justice to both. I am therefore of opinion that the motion of the plaintiff in error should not be granted.

Motion denied;.  