:

There can be no doubt that the defendant was an officer, “ acting in his office under the authority of the State,” within the provision of the Act of April 3d, 1779,1 Sm., 470, and the writ of replevin, therefore, issued in this case, was irregular, erroneous, and void: Pott v. Oldwine, 7 Watts, 173. The plaintiff cannot set up that the seizure was illegal. His proper remedy was an action of trespass: Stiles v. Griffith, 3 Yeates, 82.

Judgment affirmed.