
    Cook against Mix :
    IN ERROR.
    Where a writ, dated June 12th, 1833, required the defendant “ to appear before the county court, to be holden at N. Hon the fourth Tuesday of June nextit was held, that the time of appearance was the fourth Tuesday of June, 1834 ; and consequently, a judgment rendered by default, in June, 1833, was erroneous.
    This was an action of book debt, brought by Nathaniel Cook, administrator of the estate of Stephen Mix, deceased) against Mindwell Mix. The writ was dated the 12th day of June, 1833, and required the defendant “to appear before the county court to be holden at New-Haven, on the fourth Tuesday of June next.” At the county court held on the fourth Tuesday of June 1833, the plaintiff recovered judgment by default. The defendant, subsequently, brought a writ of error in the superior court; and the judgment of the county court was reversed. By motion in error of the original plaintiff, the record was then brought to this court, for revision.
    
      Mix, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended, 1. That the description of the court is, by grammatical construction and the common use of language, that of the county court, June term 1833. The plaintiff has adopted the statute description of the term, viz. one held on the fourth Tuesday of June ; and the writ required the defendant to appear at the “ next” term of this description, to be holden in the county. The word “ next” refers, not to the month only, but to the term — to “ the fourth Tuesday of June" The next term after the date of the writ, was, obviously, the fourth Tuesday of June, 1833.
    New-Haven,
    July, 1835.
    The common rule of pleading, is, the declaration, (and in our practice, it is equally applicable to the writ,) is to have a reasonable intendment; and when an expression is capable of different meanings, that is to be taken, which will sustain the declaration. 1 Chitt. Plead. 217, 8. & seq. (5th Amer. ed.)
    
    2. That an administrator may sue in book debt. The personal property of the intestate vests in him. His describing himself an administrator, does no hurt.
    
      Hitchcock, for the defendant in error,
    was stopped by the court.
   ChüRch, J.

The original writ bears date June 12th, 1833, and requires the defendant to appear before the county court to be holden at New-Haven, on the fourth Tuesday of June next.

What was the time fixed, by this writ, for the appearance of the defendant before the count;/ court ? We are to understand the language of the writ in reference to the time when it was used, June 12th, 1833 : understanding it thus, and according to its common and ordinary acceptation, we can but understand the words “ June next" as synonymous with next June, or June, 1S34.

Such also, very obviously, is the grammatical construction of the language: the adjective next belongs to and qualifies the substantive June.

Anda similar judicial construction was given to similar expressions, by the superior court, forty-five years ago, which has been acquiesced in ever since. Austin v. Nichols, 1 Root 199. Way v. Clark, Id. 439.

Therefore, the defendant having been summoned to appear and answer to the plaintiff’s writ on the fourth Tuesday of June, 1834, and not before, and the judgment of the county court complained of, having been rendered upon that writ, on the fourth Tuesday of June 1833, was manifestly erroneous, and the judgment of the superior court so deciding it, must be affirmed.

In this opinion the other Judges concurred.

Judgment affirmed.  