¶1 The constitution and laws of the country, guaranty the principle, that no freeman shall be divested of a right by the judgment of a Court, unless he shall have been made party to the proceeding in which it shall have been obtained. When personal notice cannot be given, it must be dispensed with from necessity, and that must be done which is next most likely to answer the same purpose, public notice must be giv* or the Defendant’s property must be laid hold of. The latter mode was directed and attempted to be adopted in the present case, and had it succeeded, the Plaintiff would have been authorised to proceed to judgment, because the property when letied upon, represented its owner, and of course, was liable to that judgment, but no properly of the Defendant was levied upon, his right to the corn was divested by older process, and judgment was obtained against him when he was not made party to the proceedings in any way known to the law.
¶2 I cannot therefore, consider it a sufficient and legal foundation for the judgment rendered in this case. I am *189 consequently of opinion, that the rule for a new trial should be made absolute.
¶3 Per curiam. — Judgment awarded. reversed and new trial