
    Brockway against Wilber.
    ■A rule for an atiachment against a sheriff ing an execution delivered to his deputy, was Sveive years had elapsedsmeethe execution was issued.
    T. RUSSEL, for the plaintiff,
    moved for an attachment against Gilleland, late sheriff of the county of Rensselaer, for not returning the fieri facias in the above Cause*
    J^t appeared that the fieri facias had been delivered to one Qf the sheriff’s deputies, in the year 1797, who r 7 J 7 afterwards went beyond sea, and died, and that the sheriff was ignorant what had been done with the execution.
    
      Foot, contra,
    said, that after the lapse of twelve years, the sheriff ought not, under the circumstances of the case, to be made liable to an attachment.
    Russel, in reply,
    observed, that there was no time fixed by law, within which a sheriff was to be called on to make a return to process ; and the object of the attachment was merely to bring up the sheriff to answer on ; oath, to such interrogatories as might be put to him.
   Per Curiam.

Take your rule.

Rule granted.  