Hill v. Brown

—The rule is very well settled, that in a scire facias on a judgment, the party defendant cannot plead any thing that controverts the judgment, or goes beyond it. He can plead nothing to show that the judgment was irregularly entered. He may deny the existence of the judgment, or of such a judgment as is declared on, which is done by the plea of nul tiel record; or he may plead any matter in discharge of it, as payment, accord and satisfaction, &c. But however irregular the judgment, it can be invalidated only by application- to the court to set it aside, or on a writ of error.

The act of assembly authorizes the plaintiff in a judgment given by a justice of the peace, after execution issued and returned nulla bona, to file a transcript in the office of the prothonotary, who is required to- make certain entries in his judgment docket, upon which it becomes a judgment of this court. To a scire facias on such a judgment, so docketed, the defendant here pleads that there was no execution issued by the justice of the peace; that the proper docket entries were not made by the prothonotary; and other matters invalidating the judgment itself. We think he cannot do this. The judgment cannot be impeached- in this way, any more than a judgment on an award could be impeached by pleading to a scire facias that the award was not valid, or the submission irregular; or to a scire facias on a -judgment confessed in debt without writ, a plea denying the power of attorney to confess judgment.

Judgment for demurrant.