Case Name: Jones v. Doc, Lessee of Carter
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1818-02-05
Citations: 6 Munf. 105
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Jones v. Doc, Lessee of Carter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 639–639

Head Matter:
*Jones v. Doc, Lessee of Carter.
Decided, Feb. 5th, 1818.
Bjectaeiat — JudgMesit—Revival- Confession by One Defendant— Effect. — upon a scire facias against heirs and devisees, to revive a judgment in ejectment, if one of the defendants confess the plaintiff's right to revive the judgment in the scire facias mentioned; and thereupon judgment be entered against him, that the plaintiff have execution for the whole tract of land in question; there is no error in such judgment, of which he can take advantage.
A Judgment in Ejectment for three hundred acres of land, having been obtained against Henry Jones in his life time, a scire facias was issued after his death, to revive it, against Henry Jones, Zachariah Jones, George Smith, and Mildred his wife, heirs anti devisees oí the deceased; which writ was executed on Henry Jones only, the other defendants being returned, “no inhabitants of this Commonwealth.” Whereupon the defendant Henry Jones, by his attorney, said, “that he could not gainsay the plaintiff’s right to revive the judgment in the scire facias aforesaid mentioned;” and judgment was entered, “that the plaintiff recover and have execution against the said defendant, for his term yet to come, of and in one tenement, messuage and tract of land, containing three hundred acres, lying and being &c. from which judgment, the said Henry Jones appealed.
See monographic note on “Judgments” appended to Smith v. Charlton, 7 Gratt 425.
The principa] ca,se is cited in Smith v. Hutchinson, 78 Va. 686.

Opinion:
The following was the opinion of this Court, pronounced by
JUDGE SOANE-
The appellant in this case having admitted that he could not gainsay the ap-pellee's right to revive the judgment mentioned in the scire facias, the Court is of opinion that there is no error in the said judgment; — -at least, of which he can complain. Nor would the case be different, could we restrict the acknowledgment to apply to his own portion of ihe land merely. In that case, the judgment, so far ás it exceeded that portion, would not be injurious to him, nor could he complain of it.
Judgment affirmed.