Case Name: RAMSEY against LINN, Executor of FLEMING
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1828-11-01
Citations: 2 Rawle 229
Docket Number: 
Parties: RAMSEY against LINN, Executor of FLEMING.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Rawle)
Volume: 2
Pages: 229–232

Head Matter:
[Chambersburg,
November 1, 1828.]
RAMSEY against LINN, Executor of FLEMING.
IN ERROR.
A'judgment.confessed on an amicable Scire Facias on a former judgment, is a valid lien against subsequent encumbrancers, though the original judgment did not legally exist.
Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county.
The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below in an amicable action, to try the right to a sum of money raised by a sheriff’s sale of land, situate-in Perry county, on a testatum exe'cution fr;om Cumberland county. The question was as to priority of lien. The facts, which by agreement were stated, and to be considered as if found by special verdict, in substance were:—
Perry county was erected out of Cumberland; the division to take effect on the 1st of September, 1820. After that day, viz. on the 4th of October, 1820, an action of debt was commenced in Cumberland county, by Fleming, the.defendant’s testator, against Jacob Fritz, the owner of the land in question. The suit was by summons. The writ was returned by the sheriff, “ served;” and judgment at the January court following,'Was entered against Fritz, by default. This judgment was afterwards revived by Scire Facias; and upon it a Test at'am Fieri Facias was issued to Perry county, and entered on the records of that county-on the 25th. of May, 1825, and levied upon this land of Fritz,-which, upon a Testatum Venditioni ‘Exponas, was afterwards sold for six hundred and fifty-two dollars, the money in question.
It happened, that the record of the suit of Fleming against Fritz, with the statement and papers, was transmitted to Perry county, entered on the record of that county, and at their first Court of Common Pleas, viz. on the 31st of January, 1821, there was this entry made by the court: Judgment entered in Cumberland .county. Upon this judgment, or supposed judgment, thus transmitted, and thus existing, or supposed to exist in Perry county, an amicable Scire Facias was agreed to, and signed by Fritz, witnessed by James Hamilton and William Ramsey, the plaintiff in error, and filed in the court of Perry county on the 1st of March, 1824, as follows:—
,, T Ei/ • Amicable Scire Facias post annum et James FienwngO to rev¡ve a judgmentj IOS, NovemT 7'¶ ., her Term, 1820, on the docket of the Court aco n z. ) Qommorl p]eas 0f Perry county. I agree to appear to this amicable Scire Facias, and consent that the same be entered of record as of February Term, 1824, and confess judgment to the plaintiff, for the sum of seven hundred and ninety-three dollars and seventeen cents, with interest from the 13th of September, 1820. All payments subsequent to the said 13th of September, 1820, to be hereafter allowed. Witness my hand and seal, the 5th of February, 1824.
“Jacob Fritz. [Seal.]
ee , , C James Hamilton, es ’ ¿ William Ramsey.”
The claim of Ramsey, the plaintiff in error,
to the money, or part of it, was founded on a mortgage of the same land, by Jacob Fritz, to him, executed the 30th of October, 1824, to secure a debt of three hundred and eighty-four dollars, due by single bill. The mortgage was duly recorded on the day of its date. The cpurt below gave judgment for the defendant.
Ramsey and Watts, for the plaintiff in error.
— It is a matter too plain for argument, that the judgment in Cumberland county, on a suit commenced on the 4th of October, 1820, could create no lien on lands in Perry county. The original judgment was never transferred to Perry county, nor could it be by law. It was never entered in Perry county regularly, or otherwise. Thus, the first lien of Fleming’s judgment on the land in question, was by the levy on the Testatum Fieri Facias, which was after the mortgage to the plaintiff in error. The judgment by confession on the amicable Scire Facias, was a mere nullity. No such former judgment existed as described in that Scire Facias. The subsequent proceedings of the defendant in error show, that he, himself, considered the Scire Facias in Perry county as a mere nullity. The Court of Common Pleas of Perry county had no jurisdiction, or power to take cognisance of a Scire Facias on a judgment in Cumberland. It is a rule of law, without exception, that a Scire Facias on a judgment, shall issue out of that court only in which the judgment was rendered, and in the same county. It is but a continuation of the original suit. 2 Tidd. Prac. 983, 1007. 2 Saund. 72. Whart. Dig. 363, No. 40. Penn v. Kline, 1 Peters’s Rep. 446. Consent cannot give jurisdiction. The amicable suit was of no -more avail than if it had been by adversary process. Here, if there-might be a Scire Facias legally brought in one distant county, there might be many others entered in other counties by the.same reason. If this can be tolerated, the confusion and injustice which must be produced by the practice, may be easily foreseen. The judgment by confession in Perry county, was not noticed. It was mere deception, for it pretended on the face of it, to be founded on a record of the court, which record could not be found, and which, in fact, never existed. As to the notice to Ramsey, by subscribing as a witness, the law is as clear, that he is bound by no such signature, as the fact is, that he knew nothing of the contents of the paper.
The counsel who was to have argued on the other side, was stopped by the court.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tod, J.
— I throw out of the case the fact of Ramsey having, eight months previous to his mortgage, subscribed as one of the witnesses to the confession of judgment b y Fritz in favour of Fleming. He certainly ought not to be held bound to inquire into, and remember the contents of a paper, which he was accidentally called upon to attest as a witness. By the way, I do not admit, that the most perfect knowledge of the judgment would have made it good against Ramsey, if void otherwise. As to priority of lien, we take it to' be clear, that the judgment in Cumberland county did not bind the land in Perry. The levy on the Testatum Fieri Facias from Cumberland county would have bound the land, but it was subsequent to the plaintiff's mortgage. Therefore, unless the defendant's claim is supported, by the amicable Scire Facias in Perry county, it must fail altogether. The judgment upon it was some months prior to the plaintiff's mortgage. It would appear, from the proceedings, that the amicable Scire Facias has been almost abandoned, and condemned by the defendant in error himself. Yet, we hold it to be the first lien, and entitled to the money. If, instead of amicable confession, that judgment of revival in Perry county had been by default, on adversary process by writ, perhaps it would have been absolutely void; because, the rule of the common law clearly is, that a Scire Facias issues out of that court only in which the record of the judgment remains; and here the record and papers, though transferred in fact, were not -legally transferred to Perry county. Perhaps there are some exceptions to this rule in Pennsylvania, by reason of inconveniences which could not exist in England, where the jurisdiction cf the superior courts extends throughout the kingdom, and where the creation of new counties has been unusual. But, however that may be, it seems very clear, that all the parties interested, may lawfully agree to confirm an invalid transcript, or nugatory judgment, provided the confirmation is to be efficacious, and give a lien only from the time of the agreement properly appearing. We are all of opinion, that though there was legally no such record as mentioned in the amicable Scire Facias, in Perry county, yet the defendant, Fritz, was estopped by Ms confession. He admits the validity of the record, and such admission by him, if bona fide, is conclusive against all claiming under him by title, subsequent to the confession. Such a confession of judgment, in every amicable action, admits the issuing of a writ, though in fact, such writ never existed. 'Wc concur throughout-in the opinion of the court below.
Judgment affirmed.