
    Russell against Gray.
    Wednesday, September 27.
    This Court oeedby at-°" tachment, for disobeying an order of restitution on the reversal of a judgment.
    is to remit'the recowi to the Court of Common Pleas, in thejudgment of this Court carried into effect.
    The judgment in this cause having been reversed and restitution ordered, M '■Donald obtained a rule to shew cause why an attachment should not issue against the defendant in J . error, for disobeying the order of the Court to make restitution.
    Wilkins, for the defendant in error,
    opposed the attachment, and said,that when iudgment was reversed and restitu- ’ , ’ • , . tion ordered, the practice had been to issue a writ or restitutlon- He referred to Sellon's Pr. 729, 730,.and act of 11th March, 1809, s. 4. 5 Sm. L. 16.
   Per Curiam.

The act of assembly directs us to remit' the record with our judgment written upon it to the Court of Common Pleas, who are to carry the same into effect. We did in one instance, direct a writ of restitution to be issued from this Court, but we have never proceeded by attachment. The safest way is to send the record to the Court of Common Pleas, in order to have our judgment carried into effect, and this is the practice we shall pursue in future.  