Case Name: S. M. McConnell et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Joseph T. Hamilton, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1872-07
Citations: 47 Ga. 389
Docket Number: 
Parties: S. M. McConnell et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Joseph T. Hamilton, defendant in error.
Judges: Montgomery, Judge, concurred, and "Warner, Chief. Justice, dissented, but furnished no opinions.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
S. M. McConnell et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Joseph T. Hamilton, defendant in error.
The Act of October 13th, 1870, requiring an affidavit of all taxes paid in pending suits on certain contracts, applies as well to proceedings by scire facias to revive a judgment, as to actions and suits proceeding on such debts in the ordinary way.
Warner, Chief Justice, dissented.
Scire facias. Taá affidavit. Relief Act of 1870. Before Judge Knight. Cherokee Superior Court. March Term, 1872.
. Joseph T. Hamilton proceeded,' by seire facias, to revive a dormant judgment against S. M. McConnell, principal, and S. Lovingood, indorser. The defendants objected to the revival of said judgment, on the following grounds, to-wit:
1st. Because no affidavit had been filed, under the Relief Act of 1870, as to the payment of taxes.
2d. Because no proof was offered on trial as to the payment of taxes.
The judgment was rendered at September term, 1861, of Cherokee Superior Court.
The objections were overruled by the Court and said judgment ordered revived, to which plaintiffs in error excepted.
Lester & Thompson, for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance for defendant.

Opinion:
McCay, Judge.
A scire facias to revive a judgment, though not an original action, is, in many respects, an action or suit. It is one form in which a particular kind of debt, to-wit: a debt of record, may be recovered. It must be served, have proper parties, it may be pleaded to, an issue formed on the plea, a trial be had, and a judgment entered up. Indeed, there is scarcely any difference between it and an action of debt on the judgment, except that it must be brought in the county where the judgment was obtained. In that sense, it' is not an original suit. But the Act of October 13th, 1870, does not confine its operation to original suits. The language is, all suits where the party seeks a judgment on his debt. This he clearly does here. The evidence of the debt is the judgment, and he seeks a judgment of - the Court, giving it a new vitality, so as to make it capable of being collected by levy and sale. The words are, any debt or contract. This is a debt; the plaintiff seeks a, judgment upon it, and it is included within the letter and spirit of the law.
Judgment reversed.
Montgomery, Judge, concurred, and "Warner, Chief. Justice, dissented, but furnished no opinions.