
    
      Baker ads. Burns.
    
    LEE moved that the defendant be brought up to take the benefit of the act made “ for the relief “ of debtors with respect to the imprisonment of “ their persons.”
    
      Munro, for the plaintiff,
    objected, 1st. That in the inventory served on him, the arms of the defendant are not specified in the schedule; 2d. That the inventory does not particularize when he owned and had the articles, See. -3d. That he is confined on a suit for breach of promise of marriage, and that this is to be considered as a tort, whereas the act only applies to contracts; 4th. That the inventory is not stamped, as is . now required by «the statute of the United States.
    
    
      Lee, contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

All the objections are untenable, excepting the last, but the inventory ought to be stamped, and that objection is fatal.

Motion denied.  