
    ARMFIELD & FRANKLIN vs. CARLIN.
    Basteen Dist.
    
      April, 1837.
    ON AN APPLICATION POR A MANDAMUS TO THE JUDGE OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. ■
    A motion was made exparte to the district judge, to allow the sheriff to correct an error in his return on an action, and on the judge’s refusal . to grant the motion, a mandamus was prayed for to compel him : Held, that this is a case in which the Supreme Court cannot be called on to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, and it has appellate jurisdiction only.
    
    This is an application for a mandamus. The attorney for the plaintiffs took a rule on the judge of the first judicial district, “ to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to enter on the minutes of his court, a motion made exparte by the counsel in the above entitled case, for the purpose of granting leave to the sheriff to amend his return of the fieri facias issued, and partly executed in the said case.”
    The district judge showed for cause “ that it appears an execution of fieri facias had issued against the defendant, and on the latter paying the amount demanded of him by the sheriff on the execution, it was returned satisfied. It is alleged there was error in the calculation of the interest. This error cannot be corrected on an exparte motion. The return is the property of the defendant, and cannot be interfered with, except contradictorily with him.
    However freely amendments are allowed in the commencement of a cause, to allow returns on executions to be set aside for alleged errors, and on exparte motions, is irregular and illegal, and of which no precedent is to be found. Executions of fieri facias or capias ad satisfaciendum and the rights of defendants therein, are too important to be thus dealt with; nor is it just to put a defendant to an injunction, or even subject his property or person to seizure for errors of calculation of the officer. It appears more correct and proper that the officer should bear the consequences of his own error.”
    Amotion was made exparte to the district judge, to allow reetSanrCTrorTn his return on an execution, and on the judge’s theUSmotion'3”i mandamus ’was compel him: a case in which Court cannot'be called on to ex-late jurisdfcüon, toe jurisdiction mly-
    
    
      Bodin, for the applicants. 3 rr
   Carleton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an application for a mandamus to the judge of the court for the first district.

The plaintiffs had obtained judgment against the defendants, and the sheriff having made an error in the calculation of interest arising thereon, returned the fieri facias “satisfied,” fol' a leSS SUm tlmn was really due-

The judge refused to permit the terror to be corrected on . r v exparte motion.

his return to the rule served upon him, he states as the ground of his refusal, “ that the error cannot be corrected on . . an exparte motion; that the return is the property of the defendant, and' cannot be interfered with, except contradictorily with him.”

This is plainly a case in which this court cannot be called uPon to exercise its appellate powers. By section %, article 0]^ constitution, it is declared, “ that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction only.”

The subject cannot receive a better illustration than is colltained the words of the constitution itself; nothing need be added. Let the rule be discharged.  