
    Perry and Nye vs. Royle and Davenport.
    Where a judgment is rendered in one county by a justice of the peace, and an execution thereon properly certified, is taken to another county, upon which a justice of the peace in the latter county renders another judgment: Held, that the justice had no authority or power, under the act of 1805, c. 66, $ 4, to render the latter judgment.
    Where a justice of the peace of one county, renders a judgment upon an execution sent from another county, upon which an execution, issued, reciting the first judgment, it was held, that although the justice had no power to render the last judgment, yet he had power, by the act of 1805. c. 66, § 4, to issue the execution, founded upon the first judgment, and that the execution, issued in this case was therefore regular.
    Where a judgment is rendered before ajustice, for ninety-four dollars, fi/ty-two cepts, upon which thirty*nine dollars, forty-eight cents was paid, an execution afterwards issued, commanding the officer to make the balance, to satisfy a judgment for ninety-four dollars, fifty-two cents, recovered, &c., but which was credited with thirty-nine dollars, forty-eight cents, upon a former : Held, that the last execution was regular, and substantially pursued the judgment.
    A judgment was rendered by a justice of the peace, in Giles county, in favor of the plaintiffs, against the defendant Royle, for the sum of ninety-four dollars and fifty-two cents. An execution on this judgment, properly certified hy the clerk of the county court of Giles, was sent by the justice to Lawrence county. This execution was credited with the sum of thirty-nine dollars and forty-eight cents. The justice of the peace in Lawrence county, to whom this execution was presented, gave judgment thereon, for the balance of the debt; and issued an execution, which was superseded and taken by certiorari to the circuit court of Lawrence county. This execution commands the officer to levy of the goods and chattels of John H. Royle, the sum of seventy-one dollars, to satisfy a judgment that Nathaniel Nye and James Perry obtained against him, on the 3rd day of February, 1828, before A. Black, a justice of the peace for Giles county, for ninety-four dollars and fifty cents, which was credited in the month of March, 1828, on a former fi.fa. hy thirty-nine dollars and forty-eight cents, leaving a balance of debt on the same of seventy-one dollars. The circuit court dismissed the certiorari.
    
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. *

It is contended, that the justice had no power to give a judgment in Lawrence county, for the balance of the debt, that it is therefore void, and the execution on it ought to have been quashed. The judgment is void. The act of 1805, c. 66, § 4, contemplates no such proceedings. It says, “that when a judgment shall have been rendered before a justice of the peace, and the defendant shall have removed himself or property to another county, a justice of the peace for that county may, upon the production of an execution on the judgment, accompanied by a certificate from the clerk of the county court of the county where the judgment was rendered, showing that the justice who rendered the judgment and issued the execution, was an acting justice of the peace at the time, issue an execution on the said judgment, for the amount of the judgment and cost, and the cost of the clerk’s certificate. This act clearly contemplates no new judgment, by the justice of the peace, in the county to which the execution is sent, but intends that' he shall issue an execution upon the judgment originally rendered. But as no judgment is required, and the execution might well issue without it, the rendition of the judgment will not vitiate the execution, utile per inutile non viliatur. But it is also said, that the execution issued by the justice of the peace in Lawrence county, ought to have been for the original amount of the judgment in Giles, and that the credit should have been endorsed thereon, whereas, the credit is entered on the face of the execution, and the officer is only commanded to make the balance of the judgment. This is substantially the same thing; an execution, commanding an officer to make one hundred dollars, with a credit endorsed thereon of fifty dollars, is, in fact, an order only to collect fifty dollars; and if the face of the execution shows the amount of the judgment and the credit, and directs the officer to make the balance, it is only commanding him directly to do that, which he would otherwise indirectly have been commanded to do.

The judgment of the circuit court, dismissing the certiorari and discharging the supersedeas, was therefore correct, and must he affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  