Case Name: Henry B. Curtis, Receiver in the matter of the Owl Creek Bank Case, v. John Hawn and others, heirs at law of John Hawn, deceased
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1846-01
Citations: 14 Ohio 185
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry B. Curtis, Receiver in the matter of the Owl Creek Bank Case, v. John Hawn and others, heirs at law of John Hawn, deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 14
Pages: 185–188

Head Matter:
Henry B. Curtis, Receiver in the matter of the Owl Creek Bank Case, v. John Hawn and others, heirs at law of John Hawn, deceased.
Scire facias is not the proper mode of reviving a decree in chancery against heirs.
The appropriate method is by hill of revivor, or some proceeding in the nature of a hill of revivor. '
This is a scire facias to make the heirs of John Hawn, deceased, parties to a decree rendered against their ancestor. Reserved in the county of Knox.
*The writ recites that in 1840, in a certain chancery proceeding, wherein G-riffin and others were complainants, and Banning and others were respondents, involving a settlement of the partnership transactions of the Owl Creek Bank, among other things a decree was had against John Hawn and David Hawn, administrators of John Hawn, deceased, for the sum of $436.77 and costs, being the proportion assessed against said Hawn, as owner of fifteen shares of stock; that, in consequence of the insolvency of some of the parties concerned, there was a further assessment of fifty-seven dollars and items of cost, all of which remains undischarged; that the period for the settlement of the estate has expired; that the assets of said estate have been exhausted ; that no property remains yet to be administered — but avers that money and bonds, of more than sufficient value to satisfy said decree, have descended to the heirs of said John Hawn; and the writ requires said heirs to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them for a sufficient amount to satisfy said decree.
To this scire facias the defendants demurred, assigning for cause, among others, that it was a process unknown in chancery proceedings.
Henry B. Curtis, in person, for plaintiff.
Bartley & Robertson, for defendants.

Opinion:
Read, J.
The writ of scire facias, to revive judgments m personal actions, is a statutory remedy unknown to the common law, and supposed to have been first introduced and its nature declared by the-statute of Westminster. 2, 13 Edw. I. Its usual office was to revive judgments, and enforce debts of record. By virtue of several statutes in our state, it has been introduced as an appropriate remedy in a variety of cases. But neither by ancient usage nor modern statute is it anything *but a legal remedy. Its nature, structure, and form are adapted only to legal procedure. It has never been introduced into courts of chancery, whore the forms of pleading and the mode of proof and trial are so different from courts of law. The parties to a suit in equity arc authorized to purge the conscience of each on oath; but the writ of scire facias, in its common law form, could not secure this right. A decree, in case of the death of the respondent, is revived against his heirs by a bill of revivor, or petition in the nature of a bill of revivor. A court of chancery has its- own appropriate machinery to accomplish its ends and to carry into effect its decrees. The cases referred to in our own reports, to show that scire facias is the proper remedy to revive a decree against heirs, are all cases of judgments at law.
The objection to this writ, upon the ground that it is not the appropriate remedy, is well taken. •
Demurrer sustained, and writ dismissed with costs.