Majority
p. 72Le Conte vs. Pendleton.
Headnote
'"I "'HE declaration in this caufe confifted of a fin-glc count in debt on judgment, rendered in the State of Georgia, to which the defendant pleaded.ill, Nul tiel record, and
2d, Nil dehet, with notice of fpecial matter.
It was then moved that the defendant ihew caufe why one of the pleas ihould not be (truck out.
Harrifon for plaintiff, in behalf of the motion, infilled that the Record of Georgia is, by the Con-ftitution of the United States, entitled to implicit faith; and if fo, the two pleas could not (land together ; or if fuch faith is not to be given, the plea of nul tiel record is a mere nullity, and ought to be (truck out, and cited to this point, I. Douglafs 6. 2. Dallas 302. 1 Cromp. Prac. 173. He alfa contended that one plea being triable by the Court, and the other by the Jury, it was an additional reafon why they ought not to be allowed to (land together.
The defendant contended in reply, that the ilfue on nul tiel record to judgments rendered in other States, can only be an iffue to the country, and that therefore both thefe pleas mult be tried in the fame manner. He relied on the cafe of Walker and another vs. Willer. Douglafs 1.
p. 73
The Court, without giving any opinion on what was alfo made a queflion between the parties, whether mil tid record was at all pleadable in the cafe, granted the plaintiff the following rule. viz.
“ Ordered, That only one of the two pleas in tc this caufe be allowed, and that the defendant, “ within four days after notice of this rule, do, or “ in default thereof that the plaintiff" may cleft {i which ihall be allowed, and that the other plea “ ihall be deemed difallowed.” Vide the cafe of Carnes vs. Duncan, admr. ante, p. 35.