¶1The writ is returned, and of course the plaintiff has obtained the effect of his motion. If the marshal has misconducted' himself in not having served the writ, or has made a false return, the plaintiff can take his remedy. But on the present rule, we have nothing further to do.
21 F. Cas. 1024
Segourney v. Ingraham
U.S. District Court
Decided October 15, 1808
U.S. District Court · decided 1808-10-15
This was a rule upon the marshal to return the capias ad satisfaciendum, issued in this case. Judgment had been obtained against Ingraham and two others. The capias ad satisfaciendum issued against all three; and the marshal now returns that the plaintiff’s attorney directed him not to serve it on Ket-land, one of the defendants, he having paid his part, and been released; and that another of the defendants could not be found. Ketland was not released.
Decided 1808-10-15