
    William Dowd et al. vs. James Hunt.
    A judgment quashing a forthcoming bond after its return term, is a nullity; therefore where such a judgment has been entered, and afterwards the original judgment en which the forthcoming bond was given is amended, and another execution issues on the amended judgment and a second forthcoming bond is given; the amended judgment and second forthcoming bond will also be nullities, for the reason that the original judgment was extinguished by the first forthcoming bond, and that bond, notwithstanding the judgment of quashal, is still in full force and effect.
    In error from the circuit court of Monroe county; Hon. F. M. Rogers, judge.
    At the April term, 1845, of the circuit court of the county of Monroe, James Hunt recovered, judgment against William Dowd, by default, for the sum of $1143.54 damages, besides costs. Upon this judgment an execution issued, returnable to the October term, 1845, which was levied on the property of the defendant, who entered into a forthcoming bond, with William F. I)owd as his security, for the delivery of the property upon the day of sale, and which was returned forfeited.
    On the 28th day of October, 1845, the day on which the execution was returnable, William Dowd entered upon the motion docket of the court a motion to quash the said forthcoming bond.
    At the April term, 1846, Hunt entered a motion to quash the execution and forthcoming bond, returnable to the October term, 1S45, and on the 1st day of May, 1846, during that term, this motion was sustained. On the same day Dowd paid to the clerk of the court, and the clerk to the attorney of the plaintiff, the sum of §1192.23, and paid also $18.62§, the costs taxed.
    At the same term, the defendant moved the court to amend the judgment of $1143.54, as entered up at the April term, 1845, and correct it by inserting the sum of $1308.87, the amount actually due upon the debt.
    This motion was sustained on the 1st of May, and the judgment awarded accordingly.
    Upon the judgment, as awarded, an execution issued, returnable to the October term, 1846 ; this execution was levied upon the property of William Dowd, who entered into a forthcoming bond, with the same security as before, which was returned forfeited. At the October term, 1846, the plaintiff moved the court to quash this execution and bond, which motion was overruled. To this opinion of the court the plaintiff tendered a bill of exceptions, and sued out this writ of error.
    
      T. Coopwood, for plaintiff in error.
    1st. The court below erred in sustaining the motion of plaintiff to quash defendant’s forthcoming bond, made six months after the forfeiture and return of said bond. Kennivgham v. Scanland, 6 How. Miss. R. 540; Clow v. Thorpe, 3 S. & M. 64; Witherspoon v. Spring, 3 How. Miss, R. 60; Puckett v. Graves, 6 S. & M. 384; Bingaman v. Hyatt, 1 S. & M. Ch. R. 437.
    2d. The circuit judge erred in sustaining plaintiff’s motion to quash the execution and forthcoming bond, after the payment, by defendant, of the execution upon the forfeited bond. Davis v. Dixon, 1 How. Miss. R. 64; Weathersby v. Proby, 
      Ib. 98; Bank of. the XI. States v. Patten, 5 How. Miss. R. 200; Mclntire v. Weathersly, 1 Ib. 831; Minor v. Lancashire, 4 Ib. 347; 5 Ib. 407.
    3d. The court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s motion to amend his judgment, after an execution was levied upon property of the defendant, and a forthcoming bond taken and forfeited, and so returned to the court. Barnes v. Stanton, 2 S. & M. 457; Bank of the U. States v. Patten, 5 How. Miss. R. 200.
    4th. The court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error, to quash the execution and forthcoming bond issued upon defendant’s amended judgment. Field v. Marsh, 1 S. & M. 347; Conn v. Pender, Ib. 386 ; Pender v. Felts, 2 S. & M. 525; Buckingham v. Bailey, 4 S. & M. 538; Bell v. Tombigbee Bail-road Co., Ib. 549; Bingaman v. Hyatt, 1 S. & M. Ch. R. 437.
    
      Onion and Baine, for plaintiffs in error.
    1. The court had no power to amend the judgment, in the manner it did, after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered.
    2. The court cannot amend judgment after it is satisfied, and this judgment was satisfied at the time it was amended.
    3. The court had no power to quash the forthcoming bond, after the return term, for any purpose, as has been decided twenty times by this court; and of course it could not quash it for the questionable, not to say grossly illegal, purpose of amending a satisfied judgment, so as to put new life into it, and enforce it by execution against the parties. The action of the court in all that it did, in this matter, was not only erroneous, but it was absolutely null and void.
    
      John Goodwin, for defendant in error.
    1. It is immaterial what errors the court below committed in quashing the first bond and in amending the judgment, as the defendant there submitted to it without objection or exception.
    2. No court was held at the return term of the bond, so that the April term, 1846, was the earliest period-at which the plaintiff below could enter his motion to quash the bond.
    
      3. The payment of the money to the plaintiff’s attorney below, was after the bond was quashed and the judgment amended; he cannot be permitted, by the trick of paying the money to the clerk, to take advantage of his own wrong, and thus defraud the plaintiff out of what is justly due to him.
    4. The execution of the second forthcoming bond precludes all inquiry into the correctness of the amended judgment on which it was given; even if it were void, it cannot be looked into. Bank of the U. States v. Patten> 5 Blow. Miss. R. 200 ; 3 S. & M. 463.
   Mr. Justice Thacheh

delivered the opinion of the court.

The state of case presented by this record is as follows: A judgment had been rendered upon which a fi. fa. issued, and a forthcoming bond was executed and forfeited. At a term subsequent to its return term, this bond was quashed, and the judgment upon which it emanated was amended. Upon this amended judgment, a fi. fa. issued and a forthcoming bond was executed, and at its return term, a motion to quash this bond and the execution was entered and overruled, and hence this writ of error.

The judgment quashing the first forthcoming bond, after its return term, was absolutely void, as wé have repeatedly held. The judgment upon which it was based having been satisfied by the judgment derived from the forfeiture of that forthcoming bond, could not therefore be amended. The amended judgment was therefore also void. The circuit court should have quashed the second execution and bond, because they were based upon a void judgment.

The judgment is reversed, and this court directs a judgment to be entered sustaining the motion to quash the execution and bond emanating from the amended judgment.  