Matter is not local, thtf the Grant or theContracJ was in another County.
Br. Scire facias, pl. 189. cites 18 E. 4. 18.
2. But upon Recovery of Laud, or Damage for fort in Land, the Scire
facias (hall be brought in the Canty where the Land is ; lor thole are Lo-
cal. Note the Dinercnce. Br. Scire facias, pl. 189. cites 18 E. 4. 18.
, ■ , . . !■■■■■ ■. — — -■ — ■■ ■ — ■■ ■ ' " - — ■- — ' I , H I . ... , ..■■■■ \i I — .— . .■!.._. 7
Scire facias. 281
» — — — : . ■ r — —
3. Debt was brought in Loudon againjl an Executor, who pleaded Pler.e
admimjiravit, which was found Jor the Plaintiff., who aj/igned the Judg-
ment to the J^ueen, and thereupon a Sci. fac. ijjktd out of the Exchequer a-
gainft the Defendant into the County of D. upon a Cvnjlat that he had certain
Goods there. The SHefiff returned Nulla* Bona. It was agreed by all the
Barons, That a Scire facias may ilfue out of another Court, than where
the Record or the judgment remained, and into another County, than
where the Writ is brought, or the Party is dwelling. 2 Le.67. pi. 90.
Trim 31 Eliz. Noon's Cafe.
4. The Scire Facias ought always to pur fife the fir Jl Ac! ion, as where Jenk.291.pl.
' was brought in Cumberland, and the Defendant fuflered Judgment h z ' S ' C ' —
C nfejjion in ALddkfex, and died; Scire Facias againlt the Executor p/gg ^? 5-
as biought in Middlefex, and Judgment there ghen lor the Plaintiff, but notS?P.
whereas it JhouJd have been brought in Cumberland, where the Original was - — Itmuft
brought, and therelore the judgment in the Scire Facias was reverfed. ? lwa ^ hl r
Cro. J. 331. pi. 13. Mich. 11 Jac. in the Exchequer Chamber Wharton th^ffml
V. Muigrave. County
fir ft Aft ion was laid. Hob. 4. pi. 7. S C. Yelv. 21S gl^ufgfate t). ©lljarfcri S. C. Hill. 9 J ac .
B R But becaufe the Defendant, who was filed as Adminiftrator of him agamft whom the Judgment
was recovered, had pleaded Plene Adminiftr.ivit, which he fhould not have done, becaule thereby he
admitted the Scire Facias good, whereas he j): mid have pleaded in Abatement of it, hy Jbew/ing the fir Jl J c -
thn to have teen hroael t in the County of Cumberland, for that Reafon the Court gave Judgment there for
the Plaintiff: but adviled the Defendant to bring Error, and fhew'd their Opinions clearly that it would
be Error ; becaule now after Judgment in the Sci. Fa. the firlt Judgment, and this Execution upon the
Sci. Fa. make but one Record, of which the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber ought to take Notice.
The Reporter fays. Quod Now, a good Caic of Experience.
An Action of Debt on the Original Judgment, or upon a Recognizance, may be laid in any County
but a Sci. Fa. mull al ways go in that County inhere the Execution on the Original Judgment fl'ould be made,
8 Mod. 73. Pafch. 8 Geo. 1723. Anon.
5. In Debt on a Recognizance taken before Hobart Ch. J. at Serjeant's Brownl. 69.
jnn, Fleet-Jfreet , London, and entered on the Roll in C. B. in Middlefex s?'£ but . the
The Aftion was brought in London. Per three Jultices, contra Winch. Deb't^no-"^
A Scire Facias may be brought in any County. Mo. 883. pi. 1241. Mich, thing' is faid
1$ Jac. Hall v. Wingheld. as to the
Point of the
Sci. Fa. unlefs by Hutton Serjeant. Arg Hob. 19?, 196". pi. 248. S. C. and there Hobart Ch. J.
cites 5 Mar. Br. Lieu, pi. 85. Where it is refolved by all the Prothonotaries, that a Sci. Fa. upon inch.
a Recognizance, fhall be directed to the Sheriff of London, and not of Middlefex. And Gager cited
a Precedent, that upon a Judgment given in C. B. at Hertford Town, and the Records brought hither
after ; yet the Sci Fa went to the Sheriff of Hertford, and not to the Sheriff of Middlefex, whereof
the Reafon muft be, becaufe in the Record it felf it appeared, that the Judgment was given at Hert-
ford ; and the like R'e.i r on is in this Cafe. But if the Entry of the Records were General, that the Re-
cognizances were taken before me, it fhould be underftood in Court, and then the Action was to be
brought in Middlefex. Cites 18 E. 4. 18. 24 E. 3. 22. 73. 22 H. 6. 38. Br. Lieu. 29. 36. and
. In fuch a Cafe, The Court held that it was at the Election of the Recognifee to bring his Sci. Fac.
either in London, where the Recognizance was acknowledged, or in Middlefex, where it was deliver'd
and inroH'd. But adjourned. Afterwards, viz. Pafch 23 Car. the Court held, That the Scire Facias.
ought to be where tie Recognizance is taken, and not where it is recorded; for there it begins to be a Re-
cord ; but this being in C. B. it was good both Ways, and thereupon the Party had his Judgment. Style.
9. Pafch. 2; Car. Andrew's Cafe.— Error was brought in B. R. and Igatl ailD (BiincfciU'lD'jB (Lafg
Hob. 195. was cited, and the Cafe was much debated ; And Roll. (Bacon abfent) faid, That the molt
ancient and proper Courie was to bring the Sci. Fa. where the Recognizance was taken ; but he fhewed
in his Hand a Certificate of all the Prothonotaries of C. B. that of latter Times they have allowed it
the one Hay or the other, and lb the Judgment was affirmed. And Pafch 20 Jac. Rot. 210. B. R. be-
tween jolting ailD Jfairtbatlft, the like Judgment was given upon a Recognizance taken before one
of the Judges of this Court in London, and a Sci. Fa. brought in Middlefex; but it was faid, that the
tifual Entry in this Court, is to exprefs before what Judge it was taken, but no Pla of
his Feoffee, if no Releafe be made &c. after the Recovery, and before jf ndsand
, „ it a • i- • 1 • r- J ' Damages
the Entry. Br. Scire facias, pi. 52. cites 49 E. 2. 23. &c the Dc-
f leaded an Entry by the Phintiff into the Land Mefnt between the Ferdicl and the Judgment by which
he was feifed in hisDemefne, as of Fee &c. Judgment of the Writ Upon Demurrer the Oninion of
the Court was, That it was no Plea ; but the Reporter fays, Quaere if the Plea had been, Arid yet is
feifeJSic. which amounts to a Nontenure. D. 437. pi. 42. Hill. 6 Elii. Burlace v. Ward.
. 5. In Scire facias againft feveral Tenants, if the Writ be, that A. and
t. entered into the Manors of S. and D. and held them feverally, it is ill ;
'but if it be that A. entered into the Manor of D. and T. into "the Manor of
S. and held them fever ally, it is good, by Judgment. Br. Brief, pi. 423.
cites 11 H. 4. 15.
6. Where two bring Scire facias, and the one will not fue, Summons ad I" Scire &*
fequendum fimul fhall ilfue, and not Scire facias ad fequendum limul. c ' sas fy'v°,
Br. Procefs, pi. 38. cites 12 H.4. 3. ™ s ^
1 r J > J not fue ; and
it was held
that Procefs may be made by Summons ad fecjuendum fimul ; and by fome it fhall be by Scire faci.u ad fe-
tjuendum fimul ; but the better Party held that it fhall be Scire facias, and not by Summons. Br. Pro-
cefs, pi. 108. cites 6"H. 7. 12.
7. A Releafe of all Aclions is a good Bar of Scire facias. Co. Litt.
8. "5b a Releafe of Executions is a good Bar in a Scire facias. Co. Litt.
9. Upon a Rule of Court to fhew Caufe why a Scire facias to revive a-
Judgment 9 was not good, this was offered for Caufe, That it doth not
fhew before whom the Judgment was given , which was to be revived by
the Scire facias, and confequently there appears no Judgment to war-
rant the Scire facias. To this Roll J. anlwered, That in C. B. the
Courfe is to fet forth before whom the Judgment is given, but m B. R. the
Courfe is net fo; but ask'd how the Record comes hither? The Counfel
anfwered, That there was a Judgment in Canterbury, and upon that a
Writ of Error was brought in this Court, and the Judgment affirm'd up-
on that Writ of Error, and then a Scire facias ilfued out here upon the
Judgment againft the Bail, and upon this the Bail moves upon the Re-
4 D cord.
286 Scire facias.
cord, that there is Error in the Scire facias. Roll J laid, The Record
is well enough ; in a Scire facias it is not requijite to fay Conftderatutn efi
■per Curiam; therelore let the Scire facias ltand. Sty. 72. .Mich. 23 Car.
B. R. Cheevefs Cafe.
nSalk. ■ •> 2 d Scire facias, and the Return ol it ; and in C. B. there is but one Scire
Notice of facias, except in the Cafe of an Executor. Skin. 633. Hill. 7 \Y\ 3.
this Practice B. R. Barney v. Hardilty.
in B. R. that
% Scire facias's and 2 Nihils, are returned, and that heretofore both were fued out together by making
t he Tefte of the 2d, as if the id were returned ; but now the Giurt made a Kule that both fhould nor
be fued out together, but the lit fhould be dulv returned before the 2d ihould be fuedout, and that the
;d fhould be tcftcd the Day of the Return of the firft.
Ld Raym. T 1. Where a Scire fircias is brought in B. R. upon a Judgment in an In-
Rep. 21X. ferior Court, it mti ft appear in the Writ itfelj how the judgment came into
Hardr's'c &• R- C v * a whether by Certiorari, or by Writ of Erro; , becaufe the Exe-
accordingly/ tufioft is different; lor if it came in by Certiorari, the Scire lacias mull
the 2d Re- fet forth the Limits of the Inferior Jurifdiction, and pray Execution
folution within thofe particular Limits, and alio that the Judgment came in by
Certiorari ; but if it came in by Writ of Error, that mull be lhewn in
the Scire lacias itfell likevvife, and pray Execution generally. 3 Salk.
320. pi. 5. Pafeh 9 W. 3. B. R. Guillamv. Hardilty.
Ld Raym. 12. And whereas the Scire facias in the Principal Cafe recited the Judg-
Rep. 216. mait j n tne j n t er ior Court, Sic ttt per infpecJiouem Recordi nobis conjlat, ic
cordingry was * or tnat ^ ca f° n ill ; f° r lt ought to be Sicut patet per Recordum, be-
thc 5d°Re- caufe if the Defendant fiiould plead Nul tiel Record, it mult be tried
Iblution.— by the Record itfelf, and not by Infpeclion; fo this Scire lacias was
M lt h sw °l uamed - Per Holt Ch. Jult. and the Court. 3 Salk. 320. pi. 5. Guil-
, g ft ' lam v. Hardilly.
Harnage, S. C. And it was Error of a Judgment in the Court of Mr. .Tialfea, and afterwards a Scire fa-
cias was brought againlt the Bail, wherein it was recited that the Judgment was in the Marfhalfea
Court, £h:od quiiem Reccrdum ccrlis de C.rufis coram nobis Venire lecimus ; and upon Motion this Writ was
quafh'd, becaufe by the Form of it, vii. Certis d; Can/it, the Record wis removed by Certiorari, and
they fhall not make Ufe of this Court to execute the Judgments of other Courts, unlcfs they are af-
firm'd there ot a Writ of Error ; wherefore the Plaintiff brought a new Writ of Scire facias, altho' the
Writ was, That the Record came hitler by Writ of Error, but then the Scire facias fhould recite thus,
(.viz.) 9uod (juidem Reccrdum coram r.obii cauja Errcrii corrigend. Venire fecimus.
13. Judgment againlt (metal Defendants, and a Capias and a Cepi Cor-
pus returned as to one ; then another ol Delendants dies, and he that was
in Execution efcaped, and a Scire lacias againlt the Survivor, the Tertc-
nants of the deceafed, and him that had efcaped : And per Cur. It may well
be ; but firft the Scire facias ought to ftiggeft that he had efcaped. And
2dly, It ought to be De Tei-ris & Tenementis of the Tertenants of the de-
ceafed, arid de Terris & Tenementis & Bonis & Catallis of the Survi-
vors. 12 Mod. 254. Mich. 10 W. 3. Anon.
14. There is this Diverjity between a Scire facias upon Judgment in
Debt, and in EjefJment i for in the lalt the Party may controvert the Ori*
ginal Title. Per Cur. 12 Mod 499. Pafch. 13 W. 3. Anon, cites it as in
the Cafe of Proctor v. Johnfon.
15. It was moved to have Oyer of a Scire facias ; but it appearing that
it was taken out to afftgn Errors, the Court laid they do grant this Motion
in Scire facias's againlt Bail, and to revive a Judgment, but here they
could not do it. Barnard. Rep. in B. R. 98. Mich. 2 Geo. 2. 1728. Ful-
ler v. Barnes.
16. On Motion for the Mailer's Report of the Irregularity of a
Scire lacias upon a Judgment, he faid the Cafe was, That an Executrix
who was the Defendant, gave a Letter of Attorney to vonfefs a Judgment to
the Plaintiff j this Judgment was accordingly jign'd, but never entered up-
m Record , yet afterwards the Defendant pleaded it in Bar of another Ac*
tion. And now a Scire facias being taken upon it, the Queltion was,
Whether it was regular? Mr. Fazakerly obje6ted, That it was; for the
Court has a Power to give the Plaintiff Leave to enter it up Nunc pro
tunc; and he faid they would do that, becaufe the Defendant has al-
ready taken Advantage of it. But the Court obferved, That the prefent