
    Franklin against Lamb.
    'The rule for an attachment against a sheriff twenty days after service of a former rule, applies only to the case of writs, in order to compel the sheriff to return them.
    
      Boot moved to vacate the rule entered in this cause for an attachment against the sheriff for not bringing in the bpdy of the defendant. On the return of the writ a rule, had been entered that the sheriff bring in the body, &c. in twenty days, or that an attachment issue. Twenty days after service of notice of the rule, a rule absolute for an attachment was entered. No attachment had in fact issued,, and the sheriff had put in bail afterwards, and justified.
    
      Sherwood, contra,
    objected, that the rule having been made absolute, in the vacation, in July 180S,t the defen-, clant, or sheriff, ought to have appeared, and put in and perfected bail, and then applied at the next term for relief.
   Per curiam.

The rule for an attachment after twenty days’ notice of the first rule, applies only to writs. The rul<; for an attachment in this cause was a mere nullity.

Motion withdrawn.  