
    
      Bank of the State of South Carolina vs. S. W. Kennerly, administrator of Jesse Blocker.
    
    Where sai. fa. is issued against an administrator on an order for judgment against his intestate, who died before final judgment, the plaintiff may, on the return of the sci. fa. get leave to enter up the interlocutory judgment against the intestate, nunc pro tunc, 
      
    
    
      Before MaRtin, J. at Edgefield, Spring Term, 1832.
    The plaintiffs having issued their writ against Jesse Blocker, the defendant’s intestate, filed their declaration to Fall Term, 1831, and an order for judgment was given for want of an appearance ; but no interlocutory judgment was entered up, and before final judgment Blocker died. A sci. fa. was then issued against the defendant, the administrator, to shew cause why final judgment should not be awarded. On the return of the sci. fa. the defendant asked for further time to plead, which was granted, and the plaintiffs moved for leave to enter up their interlocutory judgment nunc pro tunc, which was also granted.
    The defendant appealed, and now moved this court to set aside the order granting the plaintiffs leave to enter up their interlocutory judgment.
    
      Bauskett, for the motion.
    —-, contra.
    
      
      
         Vide DuBose vs. DuBose, Chev. 29, and Kincaid vs. Blake, Bail. 20. In DuBose vs. DuBose, it was decided that the order for judgment, indorsed by the clerk on the declaration, is itself an interlocutory judgment on which sci. fa. may issue. R
    
   Curia, per

Harper, J.

The practice has been not to enter formally the interlocutory judgement until the pos-tea comes to be made up, and the final judgment entered, and then to enter up the interlocutory judgment nunc -pro tunc, as of course. But perhaps it is the move correct course, to follow the practice which has been adopted in this case. On the trial of the scire facias, it would seem proper that the judgment on which it is founded should be produced in evidence. According to the decision which we have made during the present sitting in the case of McIntosh and Wright, no advantage can be gained in point of priority, by obtaining an interlocutory judgment.

Johnson and O’Neall, JJ. concurred.  