
    Vanderheyden against Gardenier.
    ALBANY,
    Jan. 1812.
    If a plaintiff to revive a judgment, does not prowkhm ayear nuance; and scire facias default1vag entevetl wont c: unt appearing and pleading, -and the plaintiff suffered more -than a year .and a day to elapse, before he entered judgment, it was held to be a discontinue anee, and the judgment irregular.
    A MOTION was made, by the defendant, to set aside a judgment on a scire facias, and all subsequent proceedings, for irregularity. ,
    . The original judgment was docketed the 31st of December, .1805, and the defendant’s attorney could find no evidence of the proceedings on scire facias to revive the judgment, except the docket of the judgment on scire facias on the 31st of August, 1811. The plaintiff, however, proved that a writ of scire facias, with the return of scire feci endorsed by the sheriff returnable in Novemher sessions, 1808, was on file in the clerk’s office, and that on the 19th of December, 1808, the common rules were entered on this return, and a default for not appearing and pleading was entered on the 13th of January, 1809; but final judgment on the scire facias was not entered until the 13th of May, 1811.
   Per Curiam.

If the plaintiff who sues out a scire facias to revive a judgment, does not proceed upon it within a year and a day, it'is a discontinuance of it, aud the plaintiff must commence by scire facias de novo. So, if he does not sue out execution on a judgment on scire facias within a year, he must revive it again, (Impey’s K. B. 314. Tidd’s K. B. 1009.) This case comes within the rule; for between the entry of the default, and the entry of the judgment, there was an interval of two years and five months. This amounted to a discontinuance of the proceedings, and the subsequent entry of the judgment was irregular.

Motion granted.  