delivered the opinion of this Court:

It may he conceded, without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right of recovery, that the first levy was raised or discharged by the agreement stated in the case; yet the Plaintiff is entitled to recover on the second seizure or levy. For that which is called a raising of the first levy, was a mere unexecuted voluntary courtesy, which might, at any time, ho revoked at the pleasure of the officer. But suppose the officer had actually restored possession of the horse, and had agreed to wait two or three weeks, or for any other period, the execution was not thereby satisfied, or its efficacy impaired 5 which is the true criterion whereby any acts under it are to be tested : and it remained in full force and vigour, and not only justified the making of *241 the seizure, but required it. Upon every principle, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover.