Case ID: johns-cas_1/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Le Conte, against Pendleton.
    ín an action of debt on a judgment obtained in the state of Georgia, the defendant pleaded mil tiel.record3 and nil debet; and the court ordered one óf the pleas to be struck out.
    This was an action of debt on a judgment féndered in the state of Georgia. The declaration contained but- one count. The defendant pleaded, 1, Nul tiel record, and 2, 
      
      Nil.debet, with notice of special matter to be given in evidence.
    
      Harison, in behalf of the plaintiff,
    moved that one of the pleas should be struck out. He cited Doug. 6. 2 Dallas, 302. 1 Cromp. Prac. 173.
    
      *Pendleton, contra,
    relied on the case of Walker v. [*105] Witter, Doug. 1.
   Per Curiam.

Take your rule, that one only of the two pleas be allowed, and that the defendant, within four days after notice of the rule, elect, or in his default the plaintiff may elect, which of the two pleas shall stand, and that the other be struck out. 
      
       In this case, the two pleas required different trials, the former by the record, and the latter by the county, and, therefore, could not be tried together. See Coleman’s Cases, 35, 73, but since the Revised Statutes, vol. 2, p. 409, § 4, the issue of nul tiel record must be tried by a jury. Trotter v. Mills, 6 Wend. 512; and see Weatherwax v. Averill, 6 Cowen, 589.