
    GRANT et al. v. POTTS et al.
    December 5, 1837.
    
      Rule to show cause why the execution of a fieri facias should not be set aside.
    
    
      It' a plaintiff issue a capias ail satisfaciendum, fieri facias, and attachment of execution simultaneously, and more than one of them be served, the defen
      
      dant may elect which shall stand, and the service of the other, or others, will be set aside on his application.
    THE plaintiffs having obtained judgment against the defendants, issued contemporaneously, a fieri fiadas, and attachment-execution, and the sheriff executed both.
    
    
      J. R. Ingersoll, on behalf of the defendant,
    obtained a rule to show cause why the execution of the fieri facias should not be set aside.
    
      W. T Smith, contra.
   Per Curiam.—

We decided in Davies v. Scott, (ante 52.) that the plaintiff might issue a capias ad satisfaciendum, fieri facias and attachment of execution simultaneously, but that one only could be enforced, and that if more than one of these writs should be served, the defendant might elect which should stand, and that the other, or others, should be set aside. Here the defendants have elected that the attachment-execution should remain, and have asked that the service of the fieri facias should be set aside. The rule must be made absolute.

Rule absolute.  