Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 Ga. 378

Bridges v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided July 15, 1873

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1873-07-15

<p>1. When on the trial of an affidavit of illegality to an execution, the Judge held the judgment to be dormant for want of an entry within seven years, and the next day the plaintiff sued out a scire facias to revive, and subsequently to this suing out of a scire facias he filed a bill of exceptions to the judgment of the Judge, but afterwards withdrew it:</p> <p>Held, That the pendency of the bill of exceptions could not be pleaded in abatement to the scire facias.</p> <p>2. When a record is shown to be lost or destroyed, its contents may be proven by parol without establishing the lost or destroyed original.</p> <p>3. The original papers, to-wit: the declaration, process, verdict and judgment in a suit do not cease to be records because they have not been recorded in the record book of writs in the Superior Court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

The motion was overruled and the defendants excepted · Decided 1873-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2010

8 state decisions

20187318801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCay, Judge.

¶11. We are not prepared to say that the plaintiff might not sue out a soi. fa. to revive a judgment, even if he had a levy pending on a fi. fa. issued upon it. If the judgment be in fact dormant it can be revived, and we do not see how the existence of a pending levy can affect it. But at any rate when this soi. fa. was sued out there was no pending levy. The Judge had dismissed it. The filing of a bill of exceptions to that judgment some time after the filing of the application for, and issuing of the soi. fa., could not make that illegal which was legal when done. If anything was illegal it was the filing of the writ of error after the plaintiff had accepted and acted on the judgment dismissing the levy: Hand vs. Armstrong, 36 Georgia, 267.

¶22. Upon proof that the original record was lost, the plaintiff had a right to prove the existence and contents of it by parol. We know of no rule requiring the party wishing to use a lost record to establish a copy. If established, it would necessarily be by parol; and as we have said, we know of no authority which compels a party to take that course. Mr. Greenleaf expressly says that a lost or destroyed record may be proven as other lost or destroyed papers: 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, section 509.

¶33. Whatever may be the effect upon third persons of the failure of the clerk to record in the book for the record of writs, the proceedings and judgment in a case in the Superior Court, we are clear that as between the parties the judgment remains a judgment, though not recorded. If the record is intended for any purpose other than the preservation of evidence of the judgment, there can be no such purpose intended *382as affects the rights of the parties as between themselves. The statute does not say that the judgment shall be void. There is nothing but a provision making it the duty of the clerk to record. No consequence is attached of a failure. As between the parties we can see no reason for any consequence. We think the Court was right, and that the plaintiff was entitled to his judgment of revival.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/50/ga/378 · .json · Public domain