Pears v. Bache

Decided November 15, 1793

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1793-11-15

This was a motion to set aside a scire facias on a judgment. Judgment was obtained August 14th, 1741. May, 1791, a scire facias issued, returnable in this term, againeS the grantees in fee, not naming them. The judgment was thirty-four years antecedent to the grant, and fifty years before the first scire facias. It was contended by Leake, for the motion, that the proceedings were irregular and ought to be quashed.

Decided 1793-11-15

Per Cur.

¶1Unanimously. Let the writ be quashed.

¶2[207] Stockton moved instanter for leave to issue a sci. fa.

¶3 *240Leake and Aaron Ogden opposed'an absolute rule, and insisted it should be a rule to show cause. Bagnall v. Gray, 2 Bl. Rep. 1140; 2 Bl. Rep. 995, were cited.

¶4They contended that notice to the ter-tenants was necessary, and that issuing the writ was not of course. It is analogous to the case of a warrant of attorney; the court will- presume the judgment to have been satisfied.

¶5Stockton said it was a motion of course. Imp. C. P. 482.

¶6Leake, contra, cited Imp. C. P. 484.

¶7Stockton. The only notice required is after the writ has issued, in order to entitle plaintiff to execution.

¶8Per Cur. Let the seirefacias issue.