The defendant insists, that the writ of re-cordari was sued out by Parker only to obtain a new trial on his garnishment. And, as the affidavit filed in the cause satisfied the Court, that he was not entitled to a new trial, the recordari should have been dismissed. It was, therefore, error in the Court, to have made the order that it did.
When we, however, look at the affidavit, on which the recordari was granted, we see that Parker prayed a re-cordari and supersedeas; and further, that the Court would “ grant such other and further relief, as may be necessary for him.” The judgment rendered by the Court, in effect, to have the case spread upon the records of the Superior Court, to enable Parker to assign errors on it, if he thought proper to do so, and proceed as in a case of false judgment, was, we think, within the scope of his application for the writ of recordari. This writ is the foundation of all the .proceedings in a case of false judgment 2 Sellons1 Brae. 544, 248. We think that the judgment should be affirmed.
Pee Curiam. Judgment affirmed.