
    DAVIDSON vs. BUSH.
    
    
      April 14th.
    None but parties or privies to a judgment cant prcfecute a writ of error to reverie it.
    AN ejectment in the name of •• — — on the demise of Bush, was commenced in the Nelson circuit court. A copy of the declaration was served on Davidson, the tenant in possession ,* he not appearing, a common order was taken against him. At the succeeding term, William Hardin made himself defendant, by consent; entered into the common rule, and confessed judgment, reserving equity.
    A writ of error to reverse this judgment, was brought in the name of Davidson. Bush, by his counsel, moved to dismiss the writ of error, because Davidson had no right to prosecute a writ of error.
    Hardin, for the motion.
    — None but parties or privies to a judgment, can bring a writ of error — 2 Bac. Ab. (Gwil. Ed.) 456 — Roll. Ab. 747— Dyer 90. Although the person against whom the recovery was had, have nothing in the land at the time of the recovery — 2 Bac. Ab. (Gwil. Ed.) 456-7 — Roll. Ab. 749. — Roll. Rep. 302 — 2 Bac. Ab. 458-9 — Cro. Eliz. 294. Davidson is neither party nor privy to the judgment. The service of notice on him, gave him an apportunity of making himself a party ; but he has not availed himself of k. Anciently, it was the practice for the tenant in possession to defend the suit in the name of the casual ejector ; but even then, he had to procüre leave to defend in his name — 2 Bac. Ab. (Gwil. Ed.) 408 — Style 468 — T. Raymond 93 — Keb. 705, 740.
    Perhaps the tenant in possession might prosecute a writ of error in the name of the casual ejector, where no other defendant had been made ; but if that could be done, I conceive it must be by a rule of court permitting him to do this. But after a defendant is made in the place of the casual ejector, there is ho reason for permitting even this privilege.
    If you sustain this writ of error, landlords, who, by confessing judgment in ejectments, have made the plaintiffs careless about the regularity of the proceedings, will prosecute writs of error in the names of their tenants in possession, to the manifest perversion of justice.
    Daviess, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      
       Abfentj jvjtcs Eibb.
    
   The Court sustained the motion, and dismissed the. Writ of error. 
      
       In the cafe of the Wickliffes vs. May & Ambroje, on a motion for a ftiperfé-t?eas, fall term 1809, the court.decided that the purchafers of a houfe and lot, fold undera decree of court, were not fuch parties as to entitle them toa writ of error to reverie the order of court madeatthe inftance of the complainant and defendant, fetting afidethe faie, and ordering a new fale.
     