
    Trenton Delaware Bridge Co. against Thomas Ward and others.
    on amercement.
    
      Fi.fa. re-for^ix eentí’
    
      Testatum sSe'af'the*1'6 goods on fi. fa. 
      
    
    UPON the rendition of the judgment, a fi. fa. was regulai’ly issued into the county of Burlington, and levied on sundry goods, chattels, &c. of Joseph I. Thompson, one of ^ie defendants, to the value of six cents. On the return of the fi. fa. a testatum fi. fa. was directed to the sheriff of Essex, giving credit for the nominal value levied by the sheriff of Burlington; a venditioni exponas was issued and notice of amercement given regularly to the sheriff of Essex. lie objected to the amercement, because the money ought first to be made by the sheriff of Burlington, and if the goods taken were not sufficient, then he would make it from the goods in Essex.
    
    
      Wall for plaintiff. Hornblower for the sheriff.
    
      
      
         See Den, Inskeep vs. Lecony, Coxe 39. Rammel vs. Watson, 2 Vr. 281. Simmons vs. Vandegrift, Sax. 55.
      
    
   By the Court.

The sheriff of Essex must be amerced; his defence is insufficient. A plaintiff has a right to give credit for the nominal value levied on by the fi. fa. and issue his testatum. If this were not so, he might, in many instances, altogether fail in getting his money. It is the same as if a fi. fa. had been returned and new property came into the same county, an alias might issue.

But it is objected that the plaintiff may thus impose double fees on defendant. He may do so, as to the fees of the writ, not only in this, but in many other cases. He cannot, however, go further and impose double centage on the defendant. This is allowed only on the money secured to the plaintiff, which can be no more than the debt, and if more money be made, the plaintiff must himself answer to the amount of the fees.  