
    Fisher and another against Larick and others.
    • In Error.
    
      Monday June 18.
    lneje^£' • scription of cmimecf as houses^ acres <,f arable 'land, 20 acres of woodlartd, with theappt<!]“',]ces’ land county, tv-act^of iand^a surveyed in pursuance of a warrant g. ant-after verdict.
    The judge in the jury is not bound to' deliver his opinion on matters of law, farther than is required of him.
    ERROR-to the Court of Common Pleas of Union county, in'an ejectment brought by John. Larick, Kilian'Foust, and Catherine his wife, late Catherine Larick, against Peter Fisher and Solomon Werlein. Several errors were now signed in relation to thé description filed in the cause, the . . verdict, and the charge of the Court.
    The description was as follows. “Two houses, one eighty acres of arable land, twenty acres of woodland, with the appurtenances in Penn’s township; Northumberland county, being part of a tract of land s.urveyéd, in pursuance of a warrant granted to William Gill.” ■■ w
    ■ The jury in their verdict “ found for the plaintiffs, with six cents damages, and six cents costs. .
    
      The Court in its charge to the jury, stated that “at the time of the Sheriff’s sale, Larick lived upon this land, and it was sold as two hundred acres, more or less, unimproved land. From this circumstance, the counsel for the plaintiffs have contended that the purchaser at Sheriff’s sale had notice of the plaintiff’s claim. Whether the. purchaser at Sheriff’s sale, had notice or hot, is a fact for the determination of the jury; but what would be considered a legal notice will be described to the jury in' the answers which the Court shall give-to certain points stated by the counsel for the'defendants.” One of these points was, that Peter Fisher is to be considered and protected as a purchaser for a'valuable consideration, without notice of the plaintiff’s claim. The answer of the Court on this point was, he' is to be considered so, and protected, unless those under whom he claims, and himself also, can be affected with notice, actual or constructive, before his purchase. * '
    
      Hall and Fisher, for the plaintiffs in error.
    1. The description is essentially defective in not mentioning boundaries. The Legislature has directed in the Act of 21st March, 1806, Pur cl. Dig. 14)5, a form of writ, which it declares shall be, as prescribed, and- not otherwise. Here the original writ is not to be found. The description is all that can be referred to, and it is not. according to the Act, nor is it certain enough to enable the Sheriff to deliver possession. The act directs, that where a remedy is prescribed by Act of Assembly, no other remedy shall be had.
    - 2. The verdict is general, without ascertaining the land of which the Sheriff is to-deliver possession, and is liable to the same objection of uncertainty. In no case has it been held that such a verdict was good, or could cure the defect of the description. In .Hahn v. Norris, 4 Binn. 77, the writ describing the tract as bounded by land of John Halm, was held sufficient, because it was accpr'ding to the formule prescribed in the - Act of Assembly. So in' Cahill v. Bell, ' 6 Binh. 99, the description in the praecipe, was held to render unnecessary the filing of any other description. So in Benjamin v'. Armstrong, 2 Serg. Rawle, 292, it was held no error, that the writ was not signed by the prothonotary, if it was under seal of Court.
    
      3. The Court should have given an opinion on the quesiion of legal or constructive notice, as they stated they would.. .This question was material to the cause.
    
      Greenbitgh, contra,
    referred to the opinion of the Court given in this cause at Sunbury, at June Term, 1818, 3 Serg, Rawle, 319 and'to the objections made to the proceedings and answered.
    1. Imperfections in the writ are cured by verdict. It has therefore been held that want of the prothonatory’s signature is cured by verdict.-• ■ -• .
    2. As to the verdict Itself, it is enough if it pursues the writ.
    3. The only complaint as to ithe charge, is that the Court did not instruct the jury what was a constructive notice. But they were not requested to charge- particularly on that point.
   The opinion of the Gourt was deliverd by

Tilghman, C. J.

The principal error assigned in this case is,- that the writ of ejectment did not pursue the form prescribed by the Act of Assembly. But this, being merely matter of form, will be cured by the verdict, provided the description of the land is sufficiently certain to support the judgment. This was decided in the case of Lion v. Wilt, where the township in which the land lay, was omitted in the writ, and yet this Court supported the judgment. The description in the-present case was as follows. ' Two houses, one barn, eighty acres of arable land, twenty acres of woodland, with the appurtenances, in Penn's township, Northumberland county, being part of a tract of land surveyed in pursuance of a warrant granted to William, Gill.' This surely is quite certain enough, indeed much more certain than descriptions usually were, before the Act of Assembly. There will be no difficulty in delivering possession, on a habere facias pos~ sessionem, considering the superintending power of the Court, which will always be promptly exercised, in case the plaintiff takes what he has not recovered, and this power must sometimes be resorted to, even supposing the writ to be exactly conformable to the Act of Assembly. For it is impossible to describe a tract of land with' so much certainty, as to enable the Sheriff to deliver it, without some person to shew him, on the ground, the boundaries alluded to in the writ. "1 he defendant may indeed insist on the form of writ prescribed by law ; but then,, he must do it, in an early stageof the proceedings. The objection comes too late after verdict.

It was also assigned for error,, that the President of the Court of Common Pleas, did not, in his charge to .the jury, instruct them as to the nature of constructive notice. I do not think there is any weight in this objection. . The President told the jury,.in his charge, that he should give them his opinion, as to constructive notice, in-his answer to certain questions proposed by the counsel for the defendants, and he did give an answer to a particular point proposed by the defendants’counsel,'on that subject—if more,had been desired, more should have been1 asked-; but surely it was enough for the Judge to answer what was asked.

It is the opinion of the Court, that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  