COURTS. 935

right to have a writ of scire facias to renew or revive the same, and no
judgments of justices of the peace duly recorded in the clerk's office, such
writ of scire facias may be issued out of the superior court of Baltimore
city, or the circuit court for the county, as the case may be, as if said judg-
ment had been originally rendered by said court, and on all such judgments
or decrees the plaintiff may have more than one attachment or execution to
be laid in the hands of different persons, or levied on other property or
effects than' that taken under the first, though the first be still outstanding;
provided, that but one satisfaction of the debt or demand shall be made,
and that it shall be in the discretion of the court in all such cases, whether
any costs, and if any, what amount of costs shall be allowed on the subse-
quent attachments or other executions; the provisions of this section shall
apply also to attachments or executions directed to a county different from
that where the judgment or decree was rendered, or to or from the city of
Baltimore.

Judgments of justices of the peace.

This section referred to as giving authority to the circuit court to issue execution
upon recorded judgments of justices of the peace. Union Natl. Bank v. Shriver,
68 Md. 437... ' ...

A judgment of a justice of the peace is not a judgment within the meaning of
the act of 1874, ch. 320, Weikel v. Gate, 58 Md. 110.

As to execution on judgments of justices of the peace, see art. 52, sec. 59, et seq.

Generally.

A judgment cannot be revived by sci. fa. after the lapse of twelve years. An
outstanding execution does not prevent the bar of the statute, unless it is renewed
from term to term. Johnson v. Hines, 61 Md. 128. See also Mullikin v. Duvall,
7 G. & J. 355.

The lien of a judgment which has lapsed, cannot be revived so as to overreach
an intervening lien. Post v. Mackall, 3 Bl. 518. See also Hodges v. Sevier, 4 Md.
Ch. 382.

It is a general principle that where a new person is benefited or charged by the
execution of a judgment, there ought to be a sci. fa. to make him a party; quali-
fication of this principle. Hanson v. Barnes, 3 G. & J. 359.

Neither the act of 1874, ch. 320, nor the prior acts comprising this section, deal
directly with the writ of scire facias; there is nothing in the act of 1874, ch. 320,
to prevent the judgment creditor from resorting to a scire facias within the twelve
years, there being no change of parties to the judgment. 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 act of 1862, ch. 262, defendant is entitled to 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 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.

This section expressly authorizes more than one attachment on judgment or
decree; hence if a sheriff's return is defective, another attachment should be issued
and the company properly served. See notes to art. 23, sec. 103. Sharpless Sep-
arator Co. v. Br.ilhart, 129 Md. 92.

Where a judgment is rendered on October 19, 1899, and the writ of scire facias
is issued on October 19, 1911, the writ is in time. Parker v. Brattan, 120 Md. 433.

This section referred to in construing art. 93, sec. 120—see notes thereto. New-
comer v. Beehler, 116 Md. 651.

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

Act of 1785, ch. 80, sec. 1, does not apply to cases in the court of appeals. It pro-
vides against an action abating by death of either party after suit brought, and