
    Jacob Wolf v. William Pounsford.
    Judgment against principal and sureties upon a bond under the insolvent law; if a creditor of the insolvent would proceed upon such judgment by sci. fa. he must set forth and establish his debt. It is error to award execution in his favor if this is not done.
    Error to the court of common pleas of Hamilton county.
    On October 13, 1820, one John J. Richey, being in custody, at the suit of Pounsford, made his application for the benefit of the insolvent law, and executed his bond to Pounsford, with Wolf and one Gabriel Hubble as securities, conditioned to make a schedule and deliver over his property. Suit was brought upon this bond, and at December *term, 1821, a judgment was rendered in favor of Pounsford against Wolf and Hubble, process being returned, not found, as to Richey; judgment was rendered for the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, the penalty of the bond, to be released on the payment of nine hundred dollars and five cents, with eleven dollars and twenty-nine cents costs.
    On January 22, 1829, a writ of scire facias was sued out in the name of William Pounsford, for the use of one Hezekiah'Sanders, suggesting the death of Hubble; and after reciting that the judgment recovered by Pounsford against Wolf and Hubble, was for the sum of nine hundred and eighteen dollars and five cents, with eleven dollars and twenty-nine cents costs, called, upon Wolf to show cause why said judgment should not be revived, and why Pounsford should not have execution thereon, for the use of Hezekiah Sanders. The scire facias contained no allegation that the judgment was unpaid or unreversed, or that Richey was indebted to Sanders when the bond was given, or at any other time, nor did it appear what interest Sanders had in the judgment, nor by what authority he sought to revive it.
    At February term, 1829, a judgment by default was taken against Wolf, by which it was ordered that the judgment as set forth in said scire facias be revived, and that execution issue thereon. Leave granted to take out execution for the claim of Iiezekiah Sanders, being two hundred, and eighty dollars, with interest from October 14, 1820, amounting to four hundred and twenty-one dollars and forty cents, with costs of this suit.
    
    Hammond and Garrard, for the plaintiff in error.
    Storer and Fox, contra.
   By the Court :

1. A scire facias, to revive a judgment, is only a continuation of the formorsuit, and is not an original proceeding. 2 Tidd, 923; 1 Term, 257. When a scire facias is issued to revive a judgment, the whole record is before the court; and if the defendant makes default, and no payments appear *upon the record, it is the duty of the court to award .execution for tho amount of the original judgment. 22 Stat. 68. In the present case, the original judgment was for the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, and the judgment of revivor for the sum of nine hundred and eighteen dollars and five cents. The writ misrecites the original judgment, and the judgment of revivor follows the writ. This variance appears on the face of the record, and vitiates the judgment of revivor. The original judgment was not revived by the proceedings upon the scire facias, and the record shows no other judgment which could authorize the issuing of the writ of scire Jadas, or the judgment of revivor.

2. Tho original judgment was founded upon a bond, executed by Hubble and the plaintiff in error, as securities for Richey, and conditioned that Richey should make an assignment of his property for tho benefit of his creditors,'under the act of 1805, for the relief of insolvent debtors. It seems, from the record, and particularly from the award of execution in favor of Sanders, that Sanders was one of the creditors of Richey at the time the bond was executed; and that the scire facias was issued to enable Sanders to enforce the collection of his claims. It is unnecessary to determine in what manner Sanders might avail himself of the judgment in favor of Pounsford, to secure his debt against Richey. Admitting a scire facias to be the proper remedy, the nature and extent of his claims ought to be set forth in the writ with some degree of certainty. The writ contains no averment that- Richey was at any time indebted to Sanders in any amount, nor does it set forth any facts from which even an inference of such indebtedness can be drawn. Writs of this description must contain everything that is required to constitute a good declaration; or, in other words, they must set out all the facts that are necessary to show a right in the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. 2 Ohio, 248. The award of execution in favor of Sanders is not warranted by any matters contained in the record, and is, consequently, erroneous.

Judgment reversed.  