ART. 26] JUDGMENTS. 801

facias within the twelve years, there being no change of parties to the Judg-
ment. Lambson v. Moffett, 61 Md. 429. And as to the act of 1874, ch. 320,
see Brown v. C. & O. Canal Co., 4 Fed. 772.

Under the act of 1862, ch. 262, the defendant is entitled to the same
defences to an execution issued eleven years after a judgment, as if a sci.
fa. had been Issued. Manton v. Hoyt, 43 Md. 264. See also, as to the act of
1862, ch. 262, First Natl. Bank v. Weckler, 52 Md. 38; Anderson v. Graff, 41
Md. 606; Johnson v. Lemmon, 37 Md. 343; Goldsborough v. Green, 32 Md. 92:
Mitchell v. Chestnut, 31 Md. 526; Hardesty v. Campbell, 29 Md. 536; Brown v.
C. & O. Canal Co., 4 Fed. 772.

The act of 1834, ch. 189, places attachments on judgment on precisely the
same footing so far as their issue is involved, as a fi. fa. Boyd v. Talbott,
7 Md. 407.

The act of 1785, ch. 80, section 1, does not apply to cases in the court of
appeals. It provides against an action abating by the death of either party
after suit brought, and authorizes the appearance of those interested, but
makes no provision for the case of suit brought in the name of B dead person.
Owings v. Owings, 3 G. & J. 3. See also, Gist v. Cockey, 7 H. & J. 138.

Land levied upon by a fi. fa. during a debtor's lifetime, may be sold after
his death, Jones v. Jones, 1 Bl. 443. See also, Hanson v. Barnes, 3 G. & J.
359.

Requisites of a scire facias. Nesbitt v. Manro, 11 G. & J. 261.

Nature of the judgment obtained upon a scire facias. Mullikin v. Duvall,
7 G. & J. 355.

For cases relative to the act of 1823, ch. 194 (declaring that a fl. fa. might
issue on all judgments at any time within three years), see Miles v. Knott,
12 G. & J. 452; Coombs v. Jordan, 3 Bl. 324.

A number of the acts comprising this section, discussed. Wright v. Hyland,
92 Md. 661 (dissenting opinion).

As to sales under execution, see art. S3, sec. 1, et seq. As to execution out
of the court of appeals, see art. 5, sec. 70, et seq.

As to attachments on Judgments, see art 9, sec. 29, et seq.

As to claimants of property taken in execution, see art 9, sec. 47, et seq.

1904, art. 26, sec. 21. 1888, art. 26, sec. 21. 1860, art. 29, sec. 18. 1839, ch. 14.

21. A judgment rendered against one or more members of a part-
uership, or one or more persons jointly liable on any bill, bond, cove-
nant, promissory note, bill of exchange, contract or agreement whatso-
ever, less than the whole number of partners or persons so bound shall
not work an extinguishment or merger of the cause of action on which
such judgment may have been rendered, as respects the liability of the
partners or persons not bound by such judgment, and they shall remain
liable to be sued as if their original responsibility had been joint and
several; provided, that but one .satisfaction of the d'ebt or demand shall
be made.

Where a covenant is joint or Joint and several, it is no defense that judg-
ment has been entered against a co-covenantor, unless the judgment has been
satisfied. Cruzen v. McKaig, 57 Md. 461; Gott v. State, use of Barnard,
44 Md. 337; Thomas v. Mohler, 25 Md. 45.

This section and section 14, recognize the right to recover judgment
against one of several obligors. Gott v. State, use of Barnard, 44 Md. 337.

This section apparently grew out of the decision in Moale v. Hollins 11
G. & J. 14.

This section is identical with art. 50, sec. 10—see notes thereto.

Ibid. sec. 22. 1888, art. 26, sec. 22. 1888, ch. 474.

22. Every order of court, whether in an action, cause or matter,
may be enforced in the same manner and by the same writs aa a judg-
ment or decree to the same effect.
51