
    BRADLEY vs. LAMB.
    
    
      June 11th.
    
    If bill in chancery do not 2 e e con* tia¿l on which it is founded to be m writing, it t0 bea veri bal contradi,
    It is irregular withl out a reieafe of errorsandthe be difcharged,
    no Caufe for rever”! inga decree ma-k'ngR" injunc.
    legally be taken fot «01>⅛1⅛⅛ without the fcr-vice of a copy of the bill with the proctfs.
    
      
       Abfent, Edwards, Ch. J.
    
   Judge Trimble,

delivered the following opinion of the court ~" The first error assigned, is in these words : The complainant has not annexed to his bill, the contract between him and the defendant; which ought to have been done, if in writing ; and if not, it ought to have been stated as a verbal contract.” It is true, that the contract, if in writing, ought to have been so stated in the bill, and the writing either exhibited or accounted for ; but the bill not having stated the contract to be in writing, it must be intended, without any express statement to that effect, that it was only a parol contract; and an allegation that it was a verbal was

The second error is assigned in the following words : “ The injunction was irregularly granted, in this — that a release “ of errors was not required ; and being so, it ought not to have been perpetuated.” This being an injunction to stay proceedings upon a judgment-at law, the injunction was certainly irregularly and improvidently granted, without a release of errors being given or required ; and the defendant might have moved to discharge the injunction before hearing, for that irreguíárity ; but had the other proceedings been regular, it would not furnish a ground for reversing the decree ; no motion having been made to discharge the injunction in the court below ; because, as the judgment was perpetually injoined by the decree, neither party could proceed upon it, although no release of errors had been executed,

Clay, for the plaintiff in error ; Hughes, for the defendant.

, The third assignment of errors, alleges that “ the attachment wras improperly awarded, in as much as there was no previous service of a subpoena, And the fourth, suggests that “ the bill was taken for confessed, illegally — first, because the attachment was wrongfully issued ; secondly, because there was no return of the sheriff, that he had executed the.svbpoena, and delivered a copy of the bill to the defendant. , . „ .. , , .. . ;

These proceedings are certainly, very irregular ; and the want of service of the copy of the bill, with the process, must be deemed fatal ; the bill could not legally be taken for confessed,: without it — See Ayers vs. Scott, as administrátor, &c. Pr. Dec. 187 — -and the “ act (of 1799) to amend the several acts regulating proceedings in chancery.”

It will, therefore, be unnecessary to take notice of any of the subsequent proceedings in the cause.

Decree reversed. 
      
       Ch. 21, § i. Repealed — s&s of iScy, ch. 16, § 3.
     