
    West's Ex'x. vs. Hyland.
    This was a ca. sa. issued on a judgment affirmed in this court on an appeal from Somerset County Court. The defendant was taken in execution under this ca. sa. and appeared in court in the custody of the sheriff!
    Wíifire a, ca*sa» ?a returned cept, and tlte pluiuiff «lot» not proceed ft» enforce the writ hv having* the deffmtfant commit* ted«5?enmltingtl»e sheriff, or having ir entered not called, it does not preclude the Tp'aiiittfffVom taking oiii a aewcfir. sa*.
    
      J. Bayly, for the Defendant,
    moved the court for a rule on the plaintiff to show cause why the writ of ca. sa. in this case ought not to be quashed, upon the ground that the defendant had been taken in execution under a ca. sa. issued by the plaintiff upon the same judgment, returnable to the last term of this court, which ca. sa. was returned by the sheriff, endorsed cepi, and to which the defendant appeared in this court at the return day of the writ, but the plaintiff-did not move the court to have the defendant committed, nor did he call on the sheriff to bring into court the body of the defendant, nor did he do any thing therein, but that ca. sa. stands open upon the docket of the court under the sheriff’s return of cepi, and the present ca. sa. is a renewal of the said former writ. He contended, that the defendant was released from the debt, by the plaintiff’s neglect to enforce the former ca. sa. by defaulting the sheriff, committing the defendant to the custody of the sheriff', or having the ca. sa. entered not culled with the consent of the defendant; and that he could not be again taken in execution under a new ca. sa. whilst the former stood under a cepi, and not acted upon.
    
      Martin, and W. B. Martin,
    
    against the rule.
   Chase. Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court to the following effect That the return of cepi to the former ea. sa. and the plaintiff not proceeding to enforce that writ by having the defendant committed, defaulting the sheriff, oran entry of not called, did not preclude the plaintiff' from again taking out a>new ca. sa.

RULE REFUSED. 
      
      ) Bucranax, Nicholson and Earle, J. concurred.
     