the money, has been held to entitle the defendant to a stay of proceedings (Hodding v. Starchfield, 7 M. & G. 957). The indorsement is to be made on the writ and copy for the Indorsement payment of a debt properly so called; consequently an indorse. of debt. ment is not necessary when the plaintiff claims damages, or damages and debt (Perry v. Patchett, 2 Dowl. 667). Nor is an indorsement required on the writ in an action on a bail bond or replevin bond (Rowland v. Dakeyne, 2 Dowl. 832; Smart v. Lovett, 3 Dowl. 34); nor in a qui tam action (Hobbs v. Young, 2 D. & L. 474). The debt should not be overstated. If it is, the defendant Staying promay stay proceedings on payment of the sum really due, and the ceedings. costs of the writ only (Elliston v. Robinson, 2 Dowl. 241). To do so he must take out a summons to stay. If the plaintiff refuse the amount offered, such refusal will be indorsed by the judge on the summons, and if after this he recover no more, he will have to pay the defendant's costs (Watson v. Coleman, 7 M. & G. 424); but the defendant must pay the Payment into amount offered into court (Clerk v. Dann, 3 Dowl. 513). The court. acceptor of a bill of exchange, or the maker of a promissory note, may stay proceedings on payment of debt and costs in that action only (R. G., H. T. 1853, r. 24, post). The defendant may have the costs taxed, though he pay less than the sum indorsed (Hunter v. Russell, 5 M. & G. 601; but see Young v. Crompton, 2 D. & L. 557). The want of this indorsement is an irregularity (Truslove v. Omission of Whitechurch, 8 Dowl. 837), which may, however, be amended, at inaorsement. the plaintiff's cost (s. 20, post, p. 28). As to special indorsements, see s. 25 ( post, p. 31). If a plaintiff in an action for a debt under 201. claims to be entitled to his costs, he should further indorse upon his writ a notice to that effect under R. G., E. T. 1857, post. If the plaintiff intends to apply for a mandamus under the 68th, or for an injunction under the 79th and 80th sections of "The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854," or if he intends to declare in dower, or for free bench, or in quare impedit under the C. L. P. A. 1860, s. 26. he must indorse his writ according to the provisions of those enactments, which see post. issued. 9. The plaintiff in any such action may, at any Concurrent time during six months* from the issuing of the writs may be original writ of summons, issue one or more concurrent writ or writs, each concurrent writ to bear teste of the same day as the original writ, and to be marked with a seal bearing the word "concurrent," and the date of issuing the concurrent writ; and such seal shall be provided and kept for that purpose at the offices of the masters of the said courts, and shall be impressed upon the writ by the proper officer of the In all acts of parliament the word "month" is to be taken to mean calendar month, unless words be added showing lunar month to be intended (13 & 14 Vict. c. 21, s. 4). But in legal proceedings generally a month is four weeks (Tullet v. Linfield, 3 Burr. 1455; 1 W. Bl. 450; Soper v. Curtis, 2 Dowl. 237). As to how calendar months are to be reckoned, see Freeman v. Read (4 B. & S. 174; L. J. 32, M. C. 226). From commencement of this act certain provisions of 2 Will. 4, c. 39, repealed. Renewal of writs of summons to save the Statute of Limitation, purposes. court out of which the original writ issued: provided always, that such concurrent writ or writs shall only be in force for the period during which the original writ in such action shall be in force. A concurrent writ must be issued within six months from the first issuing of the original writ. A concurrent writ cannot be issued upon a renewed writ, after the expiration of six months from the issue of the original writ (Coles v. Sherrard, 11 Exch. 482). The writs must correspond with each other, and the defendant will only be liable for the costs of the writ with which he is served (Angus v. Coppard, 3 M. & W. 57). The concurrent writ will at first be only in force until the expiration of the six months of the currency of the original writ; but as the original writ may, by renewal, be continued in force from six months to six months, it would seem that if it be renewed, the concurrent writ will also continue in force by virtue of that renewal (see s. 11). 10. From the time when this act shall commence and take effect, so much of a certain Act of Parliament passed in the second year of the reign of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled "An Act for Uniformity of Process in Personal Actions in His Majesty's Courts of Law at Westminster," as relates to the duration of writs, and to alias and pluries writs, and to the proceedings necessary for making the first writ in any action available to prevent the operation of any statute whereby the time for the commencement of any action may be limited, shall be repealed, except so far as may be necessary for supporting any writs that have been issued before the commencement of this act, and any proceedings taken or to be taken thereon. See Gapp v. Robinson (12 C. B. 828; L. J. 22, C. P. 5). 11. No original writ of summons shall be in force for more than six months from the day of the date thereof, including the day of such date; but if any defendant therein named may not have been served and for other therewith, the original or concurrent writ of summons may be renewed at any time before its expiration, for six months from the date of such renewal, and so from time to time during the currency of the renewed writ, by being marked with a seal, bearing the date of the day, month and year of such renewal, such seal to be provided and kept for that purpose at the offices of the masters of the said Superior Courts, and to be impressed upon the writ by the proper officer of the court out of which such writ issued, upon delivery to him by the plaintiff or his attorney of a præcipe in such form as has heretofore been required to be delivered upon the obtaining of an alias writ; and a writ of summons so renewed shall remain in force and be available to prevent the operation of any statute whereby the time for the commencement of the action may be limited, and for all other purposes, from the date of the issuing of the original writ of summons. Where the last day for renewal fell on the 29th December (a Sunday), and the writ was therefore taken to the proper office for renewal on the 28th December, when the office was found closed for the Christmas holidays, the court refused to allow the writ to be renewed nunc pro tunc (Evans v. Jones, 2 B. & S. 45: S. C., sub nom. Anon. L. J. 31, Q. B. 61). In Anon. (L. J. 24, Q. B. 23), Crompton, J., in the Bail Court, held, that when the last day of the six months so reckoned as to include the day of the previous renewal was a Sunday, the renewal should have been made on the previous day. As to the effect of the offices being closed on the last day for taking any step in a cause, &c., vide R. G., H. T. 1853, r. 174, n., post. The Court of Queen's Bench after consultation with the judges of the other courts held, that they had no jurisdiction to allow a renewal nunc pro tunc where the omission to renew in due time was the omission of the plaintiff's attorney, and there had been no default on the part of the officer of the court (Nazer v. Wade, 1 B. & S. 728; L. J. 31, Q. B. 5). It is now settled that the six months during which the renewed writ continues in force are to be reckoned inclusive of the day of renewal (Anonymous, 1 H. & C. 664; L. J. 32, Ex. 88; Fisher v. Cox, 43 Law Times, p. 15, Q. B., E. T. 1867. In the former cases of Black v. Green (15 C. B. 262; S. C., sub nom. Anon. L. J. 24, C. P. 1); and Anon. (L. J. 24, Q. B. 23), where the officer had refused to renew the writs when presented to him for that purpose on the day following the expiration of the six months, the court ordered the writ to be stamped as of that day, without expressing any opinion as to the validity of the writs so renewed. Where a judge, after the expiration of the time limited by this section, makes an ex parte order for the renewal of a writ nunc pro tunc, the plaintiff, in order to maintain the validity of such renewed writ, must prove to the court that such order was rightly made (Fisher v. Cox, ubi supra, ex rel. am.). A defendant who has been served after the six months should not treat the writ as a nullity, but should apply to set it aside (Hemp v. Warren, 2 Dowl. N. S. 758). out. In order to renew the writ, a renewal præcipe must be made The writ will be resealed with a "renewal" seal, in the same way as when originally sealed, on delivery of the præcipe to the officer (p. 3, ante). The renewed writ will itself require renewal, if the defendant is not served within six calendar months from the date of renewal. 12. Where any writ of summons in any such action shall have been issued before, and shall be in force at the commencement of this act, such writ may at any Renewal of before this act. writs issued Production of renewed of commencement time before the expiration thereof be renewed under the provisions of and in the manner directed by this act; and where any writ, issued in continuation of a preceding writ, according to the provisions of the said act of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, shall be in force and unexpired, or where one month next after the expiration thereof shall not have elapsed at the commencement of this act, such continuing writ may, without being returned non est inventus, or entered of record according to the provisions of the said act of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, be filed in the office of the court within one month next after the expiration of such writ, or within twenty days after the commencement of this act; and the original writ of summons in such action may thereupon, but within the same period of one month next after the expiration of the continuing writ, or within twenty days after the commencement of this act, be renewed under the provisions of and in the manner directed by this act; and every such writ shall, after such renewal, have the same duration and effect for all purposes, and shall, if necessary, be subsequently renewed in the same manner as if it had originally issued under the authority of this act. See Gapp v. Robinson (s. 10, n., ante, p. 8). 13. The production of a writ of summons purportwrit evidence ing to be marked with the seal of the court, showing the same to have been renewed according to this act, shall be sufficient evidence of its having been so renewed, and of the commencement of the action as of the first date of such renewed writ for all purposes. See Fisher v. Cox (s. 11, n., ante, p. 9). of action. Writ may be SERVICE OF WRITS. 14. The writ of summons in any action may served in any served in any county. county. Indorsement be made. be 15. The person serving the writ of summons shall of service to and he is hereby required, within three days at least after such service, to indorse on the writ the day of the month and week of the service thereof, otherwise the plaintiff shall not be at liberty, in case of nonappearance, to proceed under this act; and every affidavit of service of such writ shall mention the day on which such indorsement was made. This indorsement may be signed by a marksman, but service should not be effected by a marksman (Baker v. Coghlan, 7 C. B. 131). The affidavit may be sworn before a judge or a commissioner for taking affidavits. It cannot be made before the plaintiff's attorney or his clerk, nor before the attorney in the country if his agent in town is the attorney on the record (R. G., H. T. 1853, rr. 142, 143, post; In re Gray, L. J. 21, Q. B. 380). The affidavit should show that the writ and indorsements are regular (Wakeley v. Teesdale, 2 L. M. & P. 85), and a copy of the writ should be annexed. A mere process server is not ordinarily liable in an action for negligence in not making this indorsement upon a writ served by him; although the plaintiff's attorney may be liable for such negligence, where the plaintiff has been damaged thereby (Curlewis v. Broad, 1 H. & C. 322; L. J. 31, Ex. 473). As to service of Writ on corporation and inhabit ants of hundreds and 16. Every such writ of summons issued against a corporation aggregate may be served on the mayor or other head officer, or on the town clerk, clerk, treasurer or secretary of such corporation; and every such writ issued against the inhabitants of a hundred or towns. other like district may be served on the high constable thereof, or any one of the high constables thereof; and every such writ issued against the inhabitants of any county of any city or town, or the inhabitants of any franchise, liberty, city, town or place not being part of a hundred or other like district, on some peace officer thereof. See further as to the service of writs on corporations, post, pp. 14, 15. This section does not apply to a foreign corporation (Ingate v. Austrian Lloyd's, 4 C. B., N. S. 704; L. J. 27, C. P. 323). sonal service cannot be effected, but knows of the writ, and vice. defendant evades ser 17. The service of the writ of summons, wherever Proceedings it may be practicable, shall, as heretofore, be personal; where perbut it shall be lawful for the plaintiff to apply from time to time, on affidavit, to the court out of which the writ of summons issued, or to a judge; and in case it shall appear to such court or judge that reasonable efforts have been made to effect personal service, and either that the writ has come to the knowledge of the defendant, or that he wilfully evades service of the same, and has not appeared thereto, it shall be lawful for such court or judge to order that the plaintiff be at liberty to proceed as if personal service had been effected, subject to such conditions as to the court or judge may seem fit. The service of the writ, by delivery of a true copy of it to the defendant, must be personal, and should be made by some one who knows the defendant and can swear to his identity. A writ should not be served on a defendant when he is attending a court of justice (Cole v. Hawkins, 2 Stra. 1094); but where a writ is so served the service will not be set aside for irregularity, fieri non |