Case Name: The State use of Pinkney, vs. Goldsmith's Adm'r
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1800-10
Citations: 1 H. & J. 101
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State use of Pinkney, vs. Goldsmith’s Adm’r.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 101–101

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1800.
The State use of Pinkney, vs. Goldsmith’s Adm’r.
A judgment against an executor, &c. “to bind assets which are or have been in hand,” &c is nothing more than a judgment, when assets, and a fifa. cannot issue thereon until after a fiat on a sci. fa. suggesting assets, &c.
Iat this rase a judgment was entered at May term 1799, for the penalty of the bond and costs, to be released on payment of a particular sum, with interest and costs, with the following agreement: “This judgment to bind assets which are or have been in hand, and future assets as they arise, and which may be subject to this judgment in a legal course of administration.” The plaintiff sued out a fieri facias upon the judgment, returnable to this term, and there not being any property of the intestate to be found, the sheriff laid the fieri facias on the property of the administrator, to the amount of the costs.
Johnson, for the plaintiff.
Shaajf, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The Couiit., on motion of the defendant by his attorney, ordered the sheriff to correct his return, and the sheriff's return yvas accordingly corrected to pulla bona.
Note. The judgment was considered as a judgment of assets in futuro; and that there should have been a scire facias, suggesting assets, if any had pome to, or were in the hands of the administrator.