
    * James Dickenson, Petitioner for a Review, versus Peter Davis.
    A writ of review does not lie upon a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas rendered upon the report of referees, appointed pursuant to the statute of 1786, c. 21
    
      The parties had entered into a rule of reference before a justice cf the peace, pursuant to the statute of 1786, c. 21. The referees had heard the parties, and had reported to the last Court of Common Pleas in Middlesex, where the report had been accepted, and judgment for Davis entered upon it. The petitioner stated, in his petition, that, before he had entered into the rule, he had been attached as the trustee of Davis, and prayed that he might not be twice charged for the same demand, viz., on Davis’s judgment, and again as his trustee.
    
      L. Richardson for the petitioner.
    
      T. Williams for the respondent.
   The Court

refused to grant the petition, because they had no authority in this case. When a review is grantable, the cause must be triable on a review ; it must therefore be commenced by writ, containing a declaration, to which a plea may be pleaded, and an issue joined and tried. The origin of the judgment complained of in this case was not by writ, but by a general rule of reference before a justice, containing no demand alleged with sufficient certainty to admit of a plea and of a trial at law upon an issue that could e regularly joined.  