The main question in this cause is, was the judgment void ? And -perhaps the true distinction is that stated at the bar, that a judgment by a competent jurisdiction is not void. Be that as it may, however, I am of opinion it cannot be said of this judgment that it is void. A sei. fa. against heirs generally is good ; and judgment may be pronounced upon two returns. The reason of the thing is strong for this position. Many times the creditor does not know and cannot learn the names of the heirs, nor can find where they are ; he can do no better than describe * them. If they get personal knowledge of the sei. fa., they will know from description that they are the persons intended. But if in all instances they must be named, it will needs happen that in many no judgment at all can be obtained. The practice heretofore is of some weight: in nineteen out of twenty instances, the practice hath heretofore been to proceed in sei. fa. by description and not' by name. Again, I do not think the defendant in ejectment, or other stranger, ought to be allowed to object to the judgment and the sei. fa. when the heirs of Armstrong have acquiesced so long. As to Newnan and Maclin, I did not mean to decide this question.

I concur with what has been said by the other member of the court; and I will now only say that the present objection is by a stranger, who ought not to be heard to complain, when the parties to the judgment are satisfied. The plaintiff in this, as in all other cases, must make out his title; but he can say *745to Williams, Stranger, stand aside; it is nothing to you whether I had a good judgment or not. The heirs do not complain. If there be any defect, you are not to meddle in that, for they and I are to settle it. The court will say he is a stranger who excepts to a title which is derived through a channel he had no concern with. If the parties acquiesce, why should he disturb them ? As to Newnan and Maclin, if the title were in any respect doubtful, the court could not compel the purchaser to receive it. That was all the court decided. It was enough in that case if the court could see that probable objections could be raised against the title. It may be true that the judgment is not void in any case where the court hath jurisdiction. But without deciding on that point, we can see here that the judgment is not void, and that the Circuit Court has erred.

Judgment reversed.

See Roberts v. Busby, 3 Hay. 299, and cases cited sub. fin., which settle the law on the subject.