Case ID: njl_16/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TINDALL v. CARSON.
    On Certiorari to a justice of the peace.
    A scire facias to revive the judgment of a justice of the peace, must be issued by the same, and no other justice.
    
      If lie be dead, or out of commission, the remedy is by action of debt on the judgment.
    The judgment in scire facias, is simply, that the plaintiff have execution &c.
    James Ewing for plaintiff, assigned for error,
    1st. That this is a proceeding by s aire facias on a judgment entered before another justice : and 2dly. That the justice rendered a general judgment against the defendant, for debt and costs.
   By the Court:

Both objections are well taken. By an act passed the 4th February 1812, it was expressly enacted that in case of the death or removal of a justice of the peace before whom a judgment had been given, such judgment might be revived, and carried into effect, by scire facias before another justice. But that act was repealed by the 65th section of the act of 12th February 1818, (Rev. Laws, 629. — 648.) by the 54th section of which, a sc we facias is given to revive an unsatisfied judgment, of more than one year’s standing: but such scire facias must be issued by the same justice, before whom, the judgment was obtained.

When therefore the justice who rendered a judgment, is alive and in office, a sairefaeias must be issued by him, and not by another justice. If the justice is dead, or out of commission, the only remedy is by action of debt on the judgment: and such action may be brought in all cases, and may be instituted before any justice. The other objection, is equally fatal. The judgment on a scire facias, instead of being, as in this case, for a certain sum of debt, and costs, should have been simply, that the plaintiff have execution &c. (see a proper form of entry, in the N. J. Justice, 73. 2d. edition.) These points have been repeatedly ruled by this Court: as in Boylan v. Anderson, Penn. R. 529, Woolston v. Gale and al. 4 Halst. 32, Swisher v. Hibler, 2 South. R. 808, Walton v. Vanderhoof, Penn. R. 73.

Judgment Reversed.