
    Christopher Degraffinreid, vs. Daniel A. Mitchell.
    
      'Trespass laid in the declaration, on a day previous to that which it ivas proved, both being before the issuing of the wr.ife sio cause for nonsuit.
    
    This was an action of trespass. The injury complained of -was proved to have been committed in February, 1820; but was laid in the declaration, as done on the first day of January,, 1820. The writ issued after February. The .plaintiff was .nog. suited.
    The plain tiff no wjnoved to set aside the nonsuit; on the gr©ua§ .that the allegationof the time of committing aninjury, ex delicts,, is immaterial, and that k may be proved to have been committed on a day-anterior or subsequent tothat laid in declaration.
    
      Williams, .for -motion.
    
      Herndon,.contra.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mr. Jusfim Huger.

'The day when the injury complained of was done, provided it was .done ’.before action brought, is not material, unless •made so by the pleadings. In this-ease, the issue made,involveiI -only the right,of property, and the day laid in .the declaration, as well as that proved, was anterior to the ¡commencement of the -action. Chitty's Pleadings, 258, 394, 304; 10th Johnson, 418, 7th Johnson, 321. The motion must therefore be granted.

■Colcoclc, Gantt, and Johnson, Justices, concurred.  