
    Fitler against La Breure.
    A CAPIAS was issued in this case against the defendant, and bail demanded in 26,000 dollars. He now moved to abate the writ, alleging that he was a freeholder, and exempted from arrest in civil suits by the act of the 20th March, 1724, 5. • ■ , .
    
      The first section of that act is in these words, “No free- “ holder inhabiting any part of this province, who hath re- ' ’ “ sided therein for the space of two years, and has fifty acres “ of land or more in fee simple, well seated, and twelve acres « thereof or more, well cleared or improved, or hath a dwell«ing-house worth fifty pounds, current money of America, in some city or township within this province, clear estate, “ or hath unimproved land to the value of fifty pounds like « money, shall be arrested or detained in prison by any writ “ of arrest, or capias ad respondendum, in any civil action, “ unless it be in the king’s case, or where a fine is, or shall be u due to the king, his heirs or successors ; or unless they be “ such freeholders, as by this act are made liable to be arrest- « ed ; but the original process against freeholders shall be a “ writ of summons, &c.”
    
      Where a capias ad respondendum had been issued against a freeholder, whose freehold at the lime he purchased it, was charged with a mortgage, which was subsequently satisfied, the court abated the writ, although the value of the freehold was less than the amount of the plaintiff’s demand.
    
      The second section enumerates the exceptions to the above rule, and among the rest declares that, “ when the plaintiff can “ make appear from records or otherwise, that so much of the “ defendant’s estate is mortgaged, aliened, entailed, or liable 11 to one or more judgments suffered or ordered to be enter- “ ed against such defendant, so that the value of his fee sim- “ pie estate, in possession, clear of those and all other incum- “ brancespwill not be sufficient to satisfy the debt demanded, “ &c.; in all which cases writs of arrest shall be granted, and “ the defendant held to special bail, if the case requires it, &c.”
    The third section directs the court before whom such writ may be depending, upon motion of the defendant, to stay proceedings until they examine into the case, and if they find him to be such a freeholder as the act intended to exempt from arrest, to abate the writ.
    The defendant in support of. his motion exhibited a deed conveying to him a house and lot in the city of Philadelphia, for which he had paid 6,600 dollars. The property at the time of the purchase, was charged with a mortgage for 3,000 dollars, which was subsequently satisfied.
    The • question was, whether, as the value of the ‘freehold was inferior to the plaintiff’s demand, the defendant might not be arrested.
    
      Sergeant'far the plaintiff.
    
      A. S. Coxe and Lewis for the defendant.
    
      
      
         Pura. Ab. 182.
    
   By the Court.

There can be no doubt. The act has ■fixed the value of the freehold, which is to exempt a freeholder from arrest, viz. fifty pounds. If the mortgage had been in force, the question would have been, whether the freehold would be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s demand, over and above the mortgage. But as the mortgage is satisfied, we have only to consider whether the defendant’s house is of the value of fifty pounds. It certainly is of that value and more. The defendant paid for it 6,600 dollars. The writ must therefore be abated.

Writ abated.  