Case ID: njl_3/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DOUGLASS against STEWARD.
    This was an action of debt, brought on a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of the city and county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania. The defendant pleaded nul tiel record, and day was given to bring in the record. This cause being called on in its course in the paper, a question was raised (but not [*] insisted on by the defendant’s counsel), whether this was a proper plea; the court were unanimously of opinion that the plea was proper. The record being produced:
    
      Orane, for the defendant,
    objected to the sufficiency of the record; he said that it appeared that there were two distinct judgments, incorporated and blended in one record.
    [522] On examining the record, it appeared that the action in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia, on which the judgment had been obtained, was an action of assumpsit; that the declaration contained three counts. 1st. On a promissory note. 2d. For goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered. 3d. For money had and received. The defendant confessed the count for the promissory note, amounting to a precise sum, and took issue on the remaining counts, which were tried, and found against him, and another precise sum assessed as damages. In rendering judgment, both these sums were added together, and a judgment rendered for the whole; and this judgment duly certified, according to the act of Congress.
    
      
       In the case of Curtis v. Gibbs, Pennington's Reports, 399, this question was discussed, but not decided.
    
   By the Court.

The record is sufficient.

Judgment for the plaintiff. 
      
       Vide, South. 446, 778; 1 Peters’ C. C. 155; 7 Cranch. 481; 3 Wheat. 234; 15 John 121; 19 Ib. 160; 1 Green, 68.