
    IRONS vs. ALLEN.
    
      April 11th.
    
    The return pn a capias to authorife an attachment, muft be in the form prefcribed by law — See a&s of 1796-7, p. ⅞2, § 16, 1 Brad. 223.
    The ftatute ofjcefailsdo not extend to cafes where the party has never been properly in 6ourt by the legal fervice of procefs.
    ALLEN sued.out his original capias from the office of the clerk of the court of quarter sessions for Logan county, against Irons, in an action on the case. The sheriff returned The defendant is not found.” On which return an attachment issued. The sheriff returned on it “ Levied on one handkerchief, shewn me as the property of the defendant.”
    A judgment by default was rendered against the defendant. To reverse which he prosecuted a writ of error.
   By the Court.

The return made on the attachment, is not pursuant to law, nor is it deemed sufficient to authorize the entering a judgment against the defendant in the court below ; and therefore the statute of jeofails, cannot extend its aid to this case, as the defendant cannot, by any legal intendment, be presumed to be either in default or in court.

Judgment reversed. 
      
       See Craig vs. Saven, poft 46.
     