Case ID: watts_4/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kennedy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jones against Gardner.
    A levy and sale by the sheriff on an execution issued upon a judgment obtained against E. J.’s executors, without naming them, vests a good title in the purchaser.
    Where executors thus sued, confess judgment generally, such judgment binds their testator’s estate only, and not themselves personally.
    WRIT of error to the district court of Alleghany county.
    This was an action of ejectment by Thomas Jones and others' against James Gardner, in which both parties claimed the lot of ground in controversy, by titles derived from Ephraim Jones, who, it was admitted, died seised of a fee simple estate in it. He, before his death in 1807, made his last will, by which, among other things, he devised it to his son Pressly Jones; and appointed Thomas Jones, James Jones, two of the plaintiffs, Pressly Neville and Abraham Kirkpatrick his executors. In 1809, after the death of the testator, his executors having proved the will and taken upon them the execution of it, Doctor Peter Mowry instituted three suits, before John Darragh, a justice of the peace, against them by the name merely of “ Ephraim Jones’s executors,” without naming them by their proper names. In each case the justice entered an appearance of the defendants by Thomas Jones (who was in fact one of the executors, though this does not appear by the justice’s record), and a confession of judgment for a certain sum of money in favour of the plaintiff. Transcripts of these judgments were taken and filed by the plaintiff with the proihonotary, who entered them on the docket of the common pleas. In 1817 writs of scire facias were sued out of the common pleas to revive them without naming the defendants otherwise than in the transcripts filed, to wit, “Ephraim Jones’s executors.” Mr Denny, then an attorney of the court, entered his appearance for the defendants in the writs of scire facias ; and after a rule taken on them by the plaintiff’s attorney to plead, he pleaded nul tiel record : 
      but afterwards judgments were entered without stating how. After this, executions were sued out on these judgments, by virtue of which the lot in question was levied on and sold by the sheriff, in 1822, to doctor Mowry ; from whom the defendant here has derived his claim to it. Pressly Jones, the devisee, died afterwards, in 1824, intestate, without issue, leaving the plaintiffs his heirs at law. Two objections were made to the sheriff’s sale: first, that the judgments under which it ivas made were void ; because it does not appear from the record of them who the defendants were, no person or persons being named thereon as such : and second, that if the executors of Ephraim Jones are to be considered the defendants, and the judgments of any validity at all, they are binding and good only against the defendants personally, and their estates, and not against the estate of Ephraim Jones the testator.
    The court below (Grier, president) were of opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, but that the sale vested a good title in the purchaser.
    
      Fetterman, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Colwell, for defendant in error.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Kennedy, J.

—Whether the omission to name the executors, by their proper names could have been taken advantage of by plea in abatement or by writ of error, as suggested by the district court, is a question unnecessary to be answered here, as we are of opinion that the objections set up by the .plaintiff’s counsel to the sheriff’s sale are untenable. The defendants’ in the judgments under which it was made, being described and designated in the record thereof by the name of Ephraim Jones’s executors,” is at least a sufficient index to enable any one to discover and ascertain who the individuals were that held the office. It was only to turn from the record of the judgments remaining in the protbonotary’s office to the probate and registry made of the will in the register’s office, where, with the entry of letters testamentary granted thereon to the executors by their proper names, all this was, and still is, to be seen on record ; so that the designation of the defendants in these judgments appears to be certain enough, according to the maxim of id cerium est quod cerium reddi potest, and sufficient to bar a recovery in future for the same cause in any other shape or form. Accordingly a scire facias was maintained against executors upon a recognizance, without naming them by their proper names. Theobald’s Dig., lib. 6, cap. 2, sec. 4, fol. 92, for which H. 41, E. 3, Briefe 539, is cited. This authority is also recognized in 1 Com. Dig., tit. Abatement, F. 17, p. 88.

Next, with regard to the second objection, we think there is not the slightest ground for sustaining it; because, the defendants in the judgments being sued by the name of “ Ephraim Jones’s executors,” without mentioning their proper names, it would seem as if they were intended to be sued exclusively in their representative character and required to answer only to such demands as the plaintiff had against the estate of Ephraim Jones ; and having confessed judgment generally, before the justice, it must be taken as a judgment against them in each case to be levied of the estate of Ephraim Jones their testator, and therefore binding upon it. The levy upon, and sale of, the lot in dispute, was therefore valid, and passed a good title to the purchaser, under whom the defendant claims.

Judgment affirmed.