
    [Philadelphia,
    April 16, 1825.]
    DAVIS against BLACK, Administratrix of BLACK.
    IN ERROR.
    Where bail for an appeal from an award of arbitrators was entered within sixteen days, and no exception to it was taken until seven days afterwards, and the appellant, when he knew of the exceptions, offered additional and unexceptionable bail, which the opposite party refused and issued an execution, held, that the execution was erroneous.
    This aetion, in which Rebecca Black, administratrix of James Black, was plaintiff, and Thomas Davis defendant, was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester county. The plaintiff having entered a rule for arbitration, the cause was proceeded in before arbitrators, who made an award in favour of the plaintiff, which was filed in the prothonotary’s office, on the 28th of June, 1820. On the 14th of July, the defendant gave bail and entered his appeal. On the 21st of July, the plaintiff excepted to the bail, and, on the 26th of July, the defendant offered additional and unexceptionable bail, which the plaintiff refused to receive, because it was not entered within twenty days from the filing of the award in the prothonotary’s office. The plaintiff, considering the bail as a nullity, issued his execution, which was levied on the defendant’s property, and this writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of recovering the execution.
    
      Edwards, for the plaintiff in error,
    referred to the act of the 21st of March, 1810, section 11, Purd. Dig. 15. Kendricks v, Overstreet, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 357. Zeigler v. Fowler, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 238.
    Tilghman, for the defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

The arbitration act, (20th of March, 1810,) allows twenty days for the entering an appeal, and directs that the appellant, if the defendant, shall produce one or more sufficient sureties, who shall .enter into a recognizance in the nature of special bail, &c. The objection in this case is, that sufficient sureties were not produced, and therefore the law has not been complied with. We think this rather too severe a construction. Here the bail was entered within sixteen days, and if it had been excepted to, immediately, it might have been perfected within twenty days. But no exception was taken until seven days after the entering of the bail, and then the twenty days had expired. It is true, the plaintiff might not have received notice of the entering of bail for some days, and that might be the reason why his exception came so late, And the parties will always be subject to difficulties of this kind, until the Courts of Common Pleas make rules, (which they have power to do,) regulating the manner in which notice shall be given respecting the entry of bail. But, in the present instance, inasmuch as it appears that bail was entered within sixteen days, and it does not appear that it was owing to any fault of the defendant, that it was not perfected within twenty days, and as it appears, moreover, that unexceptionable additional bail was offered, as soon as the defendant knew that the first bail was excepted to, it is the opinion of the court that the plaintiff had no right to issue an ex-_> e'cution, and therefore it must be reversed.

Judgment rev.ered.-  