Case ID: miles_2/html/0070-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MANUFACTURERS &c. BANK v. FREDERICKSON.
    March 16, 1837.
    
      Rule to show cause why the fieri facias should not he set aside.
    
    If a year and a day have elapsed since the entry of a judgment by agreement, the plaintiff cannot issue an execution without a scire facias, although the agreement for judgment specifies that it is to be without stay of execution or appeal.
    IN this case, judgment for the plaintiff was entered by agreement, dated December 30, 1834, which stipulated that it was “ without stay of execution or appeal.” The case so stood until February 23, 1837, when the plaintiff issued a fieri facias. The defendant took a rule to show cause why the fieri facias should not be set aside.
    
      JVewcornb, for the rule,
    contended that no execution could legally issue, there having been no scire facias post an. el cli. et qua. ex. non.
    
    
      Troubat, contra,
    argued that no scire facias was necessary under the terms of the agreement.
   Per Curiam.

The terms of the agreement do not obviate the necessity of the issuing of a scire facias, as is usual in other cases, after the lapse of the year and a day, and where no previous execution has been issued. The phrase “ without stay of execution” only deprived the defendant of the privilege which he otherwise would have had of entering security, or pleading his freehold, for a cesset according to the act of assembly. The rule must be made absolute.

Rule absolute.