delivered the opinion of the court.

The right of the plaintiff in órror to the writs for which *575 the motion now before us is made, depends on the question whether, by the proceedings taken in the case, the writ of ■ error upon the first judgment became a supersedeas?

And this question is answered by the express words of the twenty-third section of the Judiciary Act.

The legislature has seen fit to make the lodging of a -copy of the writ, within ten days, a prerequisite to the operation of the writ as a supersedeas. The cause was removed from the inferior court to this court, by the issuing of the writ; and the due service of it upon the court to which it is addressed; but its additional effect, as a supersedeas,, depends upon compliance with the conditions imposed by the .act. We cannot dispense with that compliance in respect' to lodging a copy for the adverse, party.

The motion for writs of supersedeas in both cases, must,'' therefore, be denied;,and as the second writ of error brings nothing before us, unless the writ in the first'case operated-as a supersedeas under the statute, that writ must be .

Dismissed.