
    Howard v. Hunt.
    If a writ of review is issued within a year after the judgment, though the service is delayed till after its expiration, the action of review is seasonably brought and may bo prosecuted.
    Review of an action upon the case. The original judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff at the April term of the court of common pleas, for this county, 1844, which term closed on the sixteenth day of that month.
    The writ of review was issued from the clerk’s office of said court, March 18, 1845, returnable at the September term, 1845, but it was not served upon the plaintiff until the 26th of April, 1845.
    The plaintiff' moved to dismiss the review, on the ground that it was not commenced within the term limited by the statute, and it was ordered that the question arising upon that motion should be assigned to this court for decision.
    
      Edwards and Handerson, for the defendant in review.
    
      Lane, for the plaintiff in review.
   Woods, J.

The question here presented, is substantially the same which arose in Society for Propagating the Gospel v. Whitcomb, 2 N. H. Rep. 227. It was there held, that the commencement of an action, or the suing out of a writ, is by our practice, the time when the writ is in fact filled up for service. The writ of review was in that ease issued within the period limited, though not served till afterward; and it was held that the review was commenced by the issuing of the writ.

Such is the present case. The writ was filled and issued wdthin the year. The delay to serve it did not impair the right of the party to prosecute the review. The motion must therefore be denied. Motion denied.

/  