Majority
p. 76Le Conte v. Pendleton.
Headnote
THE declaration in this cause consisted of a single count in debt on judgment, rendered in the state of Georgia, to which the defendant pleaded?
p. 77in behalf of the motion, insisted that the record of Georgia is, by the constitution of the United States, entitled to implicit faith ; and if so, the two pleas could not stand together ; or if such faith is not to be given, the plea of nul tiel record is a mere nullity, and ought to be struck out, and cited to this point, 1 Douglass, 6. 2 Dallas, 302. 1 Cromp. Prac. 173. He also contended that one plea being triable by the court, and the other by the jury, it was an additional reason why they ought not to be allowed to stand together. The defendant contended in reply, that the issue on nul tiel record to judgments rendered in other states, can only be an issue to the country, and that therefore both these pleas must be tried in the same manner. He relied on the case of Walker and another v. Willer. Douglass, 1.
1st. Nul tiel record, and
2d. Nil debet, with notice of special matter.
It was then moved that the defendant show cause why one of the pleas should not be struck out.
Harison, for the plaintiff,
The court, without giving any opinion on the question, whether mil tiel record was at all pleadabic in the case, granted the plaintiff the following rule, viz.
<£ Ordered, That only one of the two pleas in this 6£ cause be allowed, and that the defendant, within r,c four days after notice of this rule, do, or in default
p. 78
u thereof, that the plaintiff do elect which shall be 1 “ allowed, and that the other plea shall be deemed (c disallowed.” Vide the case of Carnes v. Duncan admr. ante, p.41.