Case ID: scl_3/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gitimike, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1804.
    Farrar’s Administrator v. Carmichael.
    The want of the writ, and a copy of the cause of action, blanks in the declaration, and a clerical error as to the date when judgment was rendered, are none of them fatal objections to a judgment, on the plea of mil tie! record; if sufficient appears upon the record to shew that such a judgment was rendered as is put in issue by the pleadings.
    
      Scire facias to revive a judgment, brought in Orangeburgh dis. trict. The plaintiff stated in his writ and declaration, that his in. testate had recovered against the defendant a certain debt of £609, Gs. sterling, and £G, 12s. costs of suit, &c. The defendant pleaded nul lid record, to which issue was joined. The original record was produced before Grimke, J. Upon inspection of the record, there was found no writ, or copy of the bond declared on. The declaration coniaiued no allegation, that the defendant was bound to pay any sum in certain. It counted that the defendant was at-{ached to answer in' a plea that he render the said F. F. £609, 6s. 5 and that he, on the day of , acknowledged himself to be bound to the said F. F., in the aforesaid sum of , &c. An order for judgment was indorsed, and a verdict for one shilling. Judgment was entered up for default, as on the 4th Decernber, 1701, and was stated to have been signed on the Itith November in the same year.
    
    H. D. Ward, for the defendant,
    urged that the record produced, on account of the blanks therein, and other defects and irregularities, was insufficient to prove the issue, aud that there was a failure of record. That the judgment appeared to have been signed before the rendition of judgment. That at most it was a judgment for one shilli ¡g, the amount of the verdict: aud that the words debt aforesaid, rnus1 be referred to the finding of the jury.' That the record is mcompleie, there being no writ, and the law requires that actions shall he commenced by writ. And that if there was a writ, it ought to be produced, because the whole record ought to be pro. duced, aud not a part only.
   Gitimike, J.

gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the motion in this court was to reversi that decision.

By THrf court, '¡'he objection to the record, on the ground of its being incomplete for wa, t of the original writ, is not valid. It tnust he presumed, alter judgment, that there was a writ, which has been lost m the custouy of the law. The judgment for £609, 6s. is authorized by the declaration, which mentions that as the sum sued for, and that the d. leridant acknowledged himself bound in the aforesaid sum. The word of may be rejected as surplusage. The verdict finds the debt, and the one shilling must be intended as given tor damages. But it was unnecessary to apply to a jury. The judgment was regularly entered for default. The interlocutory judgment might have been set aside, but was not; and the plaintiff had a right to enter up final judgment without the intervention of a jury. The date of the rendition of judgment appears to be irregular, for it is slated to have been after the signing of the judgment, which could not be. But this is not fatal, because a .clerical mistake. It appears by ihe record, that such a judgment as is put in issue by (he pleadings in this case was rendered ; and as between these parties it is not material when it was signed.

M nion overruled

Present, Grimke, Waties, Johnson, Tbezevant, and Brutar», Justices; Bay, J, absent.