Richard Farrell, - Appellant; Mary Gleeson and Another, - Respondents; and the said R Farrell, - Appellant; the said Mary Gleeson, - Respondent

[702] RICHARD FARRELL,-Appellant; MARY GLEESON and Another,-Respondents; and the said R. FARRELL,-Appellant; the said MARY GLEESON,-Respondent [March 7, 8; Sept. 5, 1844]. [Mews' Dig. i. 365, 366; ix. 24, 315; xii. 650.] Judgment-Scire Facias--Statute of Limitations-Costs. A scire facias on a judgment is not a mere continuation of a former suit, but creates a new right. A judgment was obtained in 1813. It was revived by scire facias in 1828. A bill was filed in 1838 in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, against the representatives of the debtor, praying for an account, and that the principal and interest due on the judgment might be satisfied out of the debtor's personal or real estate. Plea of the Statute of Limitations (3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 40): - Held, that the scire facias created new rights, and the plea was no bar to the suit. A case was pending in this House; the defendant in a similar case made an offer to the plaintiff to be bound by the decision of the House in the case pending. The plaintiff took no notice of the -offer, but compelled the defendant to go on with his defence. Judgment was given against the defendant; he brought an appeal to this House, and prosecuted it to a hearing after an adverse decision in the case previously pending. Judgment being given against him in his own case, he was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs. These appeals arose upon a bill to enforce a judgment which had been revived by scire facias. In Trinity Term 1813, a judgment was obtained in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, by John Gleeson, against Michael Keane, for the sum of £199 10s. In March 1825, Michael Keane died. In March 1828 Gleeson also died, leaving his wife, Mary Gleeson, his executrix and sole devisee. In Michaelmas Term 1828, the judgment was re-docketed and revived by scire faajtas, against the heirs and terre-tenants of Keane. An elegit was issued against his lands, and ejectments were brought; but these proceedings had no result. In April 1838, the original [703] judgment still remaining unsatisfied, Mary Gleeson filed her bill in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, against the widow and children of Keane, and against the Appellant, who was an incumbrancer on his real estate, praying for the usual accounts, and that payment might be ordered of the principal and interest due on the judgment of 1813; and that if the personal estate of Keane should not be found sufficient to satisfy the same, his real estate might be ordered to be sold and applied in discharge thereof. The Appellant pleaded in bar the Statute of Limitations, 3 and 4 W. 4, c. 27, s. 40,* alleging that a present right to receive the debt and damages secured by the judgment accrued to John Gleeson in his lifetime, and that * By which it is enacted, " That after 31 Dec. 1833, no action or suit or other proceeding shall be brought to recover any sum of money secured by any mortgage, judgment or lien, or otherwise charged upon or payable out of any land or rent, at law or in equity, or any legacy, but within 20 years next after a present right to receive the same shall have accrued to some person capable of giving a discharge for or release of the same; unless in the meantime some part of the principal money, or some interest thereon, shall have been paid, or some acknowledgment," etc. 1269 XI CLARK & FINNELLY, 704 FARRELL V. GLEESON [1844] he was capable of giving a discharge for and release of the same; and that such, present right accrued more than 20 years before the filing of the bill, and that no part of the principal or interest was paid within that time. The Appellant also put in an answer. The Respondent demurred to the plea, and on the 7th February 1840 the same was overruled on the authority of a case of Farran v. Ottiwell, then recently decided by a large majority of Judges in the Exchequer Chamber (2 Irish Law Rep. 110; and 2 Jebb and Symes, 97). An offer was then made by the Appellant to allow this case to be decided by the result of a writ of error which was brought in this House on the judgment in Farran v. Ottiwell. The Respondent took no [704] notice of that offer, but compelled the Appellant to put in a further answer, to...