Manhattan Company against Smith, in custody

Manhattan Company against Smith, in custody. To an application for a supersedeas for not having been charged on execution, within three months after judgment, it is a good answer, that the defendant has since been charged. This was an application for a supersedeas, for not being charged in execution in due time, according to the act for the relief of debtors, with respect to the imprisonment of their persons. The counsel for the plaintiff relied on Brantingham's Case, Cole. Cas. 42. The *Court, without hearing any argument for [*68] t he defendant, said, the authority cited was conclusive. Minturn and Champlin v. Phelps, 3 Johns. Rep. 446. [MAJORITY — Livingston, J.,] Livingston, J., acquiesced, because it had been so decided, but confessed he did not believe the legislature intended the construction put upon the act by the court should ever be given to it. The rigor of the practice was, in, his opinion, enough to condemn it, for he thought the neglect in the plaintiff ought to accrue to the advantage of the prisoner. Supersedeas refused.