
    Andrews, et al. vs. W. & J. Bosley.
    Euhor. to Ijallimors county court, issued on the 2d of February 1822,, to,remove the proceedings on a judgment by confession, by way of supersedeas, entered into by the plaintiffs in error, before, two justices of the peace, on the 17th of November 1815,. tq stay execution agreeably to the act of 1814, ck. 84, on a judgment rendered on the 9th of May 1815, in favour of the. defendants* in error, against one of the plaintiffs in error.
    Where a confess slon of judgments by, way of supqrsc*dous, was entered into on the 17th oír November 1815, to stay execution, agreeablyto th« act of 1814, ch. 84, on a judgment rendered on the 9th of May 1815, and a writ of error issued on the 2d of February 1822, to re» move the proceed-’ in/*s on the judff* incut by conies« sion — Heidi that the writ of trios be quashed, more than three yenra having elapsed from the jud#». ment by confe«« sion and the suing the writ of errei*
    
      Murray, for the defendants in error,
    moved to ,quash the writ of error, it having been sued out after three,years had elapsed since the judgment. He cited the act of 1807, eh, 151, limiting appeals and writs of error to threeyears after the rendition of judgment. ’ ¡
    
      R. Johnson, contra.
    The act of 1807, eh. 15.1, alludes, to judgments in the general court and county courts. The writ of error in this case is on a confession of judgment under the.act of 1814, eh. 84, taken before two justices of the peace, and by that act such confession stayed, execution on, the judgment until the 31st of January 1816.
   WRIT OR ERROR QUASHED.  