
    Josiah C. Bennett and another vs. George Holmes and another.
    Androscoggin.
    Opinion February 3, 1887.
    
      Indorsement of writs. B. S., c. 81, § 6.
    
    A writ was indorsed “No. 262. Erom tlie office of J W. Mitchell.” Held,. sufficient compliance with R. S., c. 81, § 6.
    On exceptions.
    A real action. The plaintiffs were described in the writ as-, residents of Lynn, Massachusetts. On the first day of returni term, the defendants filed a motion to abate the writ, because it was not indorsed before entry in court by a citizen of this state, as required by statute. The writ was indorsed as shown in the opinion, and the court held that was sufficient; to that ruling, the defendants alleged exceptions.
    
      J. W. Mitchell, for the plaintiffs,
    cited : Stone v. McLcmathan, 39 Maine, 131; Richards v. McKenney, 43 Maine, 177 ; .Booker v. Stinchfield, 47 Maine, 340 ; Sawtelle v. Wardwell, 56 Maine, 146; 8 Cush. 98; 3 Pick. 442; 8 Pick. 25'; 11 Pick. 66 ; Wrights v. Goles, 11 Met. 293.
    
      
      David Dunn, for the defendants.
    We cite the case Gilmore v. Crosby et al. 76 Maine, 599. '.That case settles this case clearly and firmly.
   Haskell, J.

It is settled law in this state, that an indorsement of a writ as follows, "No. 262. From the office of J. W. Mitchell,” is sufficient. Jacobs v. Benson, 39 Maine, 132; Richards v. McKenney, 43 Maine, 177 ; Sawtelle v. Wardwell, 56 Maine, 146. The indorsement in Gilmore v. Crosby, 76 Maine, 599, was in different form.

Exceptions overruled.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Virgin, Libbey and Emery, JJ., concurred.  