|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COOMBS v. JORDAN 327
be now issued upon the one of the other after the lapse of three
years from their date without a revival, (g)
After the time has elapsed by which the plaintiff is precluded
from at once issuing an execution upon his judgment, he may still,
if it be not satisfied, instead of a scire facias, have an action of
debt upon it; but the institution of such an action, as it is incom-
patible with, and cannot be prosecuted at the same time, and to-
gether with an execution upon the judgment, amounts to a waiver
of the lien arising from the right to issue execution; or an admis-
sion, that no such lien then exists, (h) There was formerly no
positive limitation to an action of debt upon a judgment; but
after the lapse of twenty years it would be presumed to have been
satisfied, unless the delay could be sufficiently accounted for. (i)
But by our act of Assembly the bringing of such an action of debt
has been expressly limited to twelve years, (j)
It appears from the proceedings and the testimony taken in sup-
port of the claim of Stone & McWilliams, that at the August term,
1822, of St. Mary's County Court, they obtained a judgment
against James Walker and Jeremiah Booth, for the before men-
tioned amount, from which judgment Walker and Booth appealed;
and, after the case had been taken to the Court of Appeals, and
placed there for argument, Jeremiah Booth, on the 10th November,
1824, died; that afterwards, at June term, 1825, of the Court of
Appeals, the judgment of the county court was affirmed; and that
a part of the judgment so affirmed had been satisfied by Walker,
who had since become totally insolvent. There has been here
therefore not only a considerable lapse of time since the rendition
of the judgment by the county court, but an abatement by the
death of Booth since the judgment was rendered.
But it has been declared, that no case in the Court of Appeals,
(g) Barrington v. O'Brien, 1 Ball & Be. 173; Matthews' Presum. 470; Thomas
v. Harvie, 10 Wheat. 146; Berrett t). Oliver, 7 G. & J. 207.
STUMP v. HOPKINS.—On the petition in this case a ca, sa. was ordered, on the
return of which it was moved to quash the execution, because more than a year had
elapsed from the date of the 'decree before the application for the ca. sa.
1806,—KILTY, Chancellor.—This objection is such as to cause some doubt, and
to require consideration; therefore, the execution must be quashed as having been
erroneously issued.—M. S.; Forum Rom. 192; 1823, ch. 104.
~t&) Selwin, N. P. 627; 3 Blac. Com. 160, note; Bates v. Lockwood, 1 T. R. 638;
Holmes v, Wainewright, 1 Swan. 23; Sasscer v. Walker, 5 G. & J, 103,—(i) Ke-
mys v. Ruscomb, 2 Atk. 45; Hales v. Hales, 1 Rep. Cha. 105; Winchcomb v.
Winchcomb, % Rep. Cha. 101,—(j ) 1715, ch, 23, s, 6; Hammond 9. Denton, 1 H.
& McH. 200.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
