
    Miller against Ralston.
    In Error.
    ON the 4th May, 1812, Ralston obtained a judgment before Richard Renshaw, Esq. an alderman of the city, against Miller-, and on the 12th of the same month an appeal was ■entered to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county.
    On an appeal from a justice of the peace, if the promise be laid in the declaration after» the entering o£ the appeal, it is error.
    The court refused to award a venire facias de novó, because there was no error m the course of the trial*
    said that the day was not material.
    
      Browne and Grinnell,
    
    now shewed for error that the promise laid in the declaration was after the appeal was entered; to wit, on the Ist June, 1812.
    
      Hopkins, for the defendant in error,
   By the Court.

It appears by the record that the action was brought before the debt was due, which is manifest •error. ■ The judgment must therefore be reversed.

Mr. Hopkins then moved for a venire facias de novo, which the Court refused, because there was no error in the course of the trial, but it appeared from the plaintiff’s own averment that there was no cause of action at the time the suit was commenced.

Judgment reversed.  