
    COURT OF APPEALS, JUN$ TERM,. 1822,
    Frazier et al. Lessee vs. Hall.
    A motion to enlarge the term Iht demhe in an1' action ol‘ eject merit, •wherein, judgment* ‘ bad been icmleml in the late central court in 1790, i<>
    Where a .judjymem in cjocimcnC rendered in the late general court in ts02, bad been' enjoined by in* jun< non, and the ease brought and affirmed hi the court ofap-, peals, cn nppial from ‘ chanceiy‘ the term of lh$ dtmne laid m the deeuuation Mas enlarged, (note)
    
    I he record of a deed m 1757, curroc ttd so as to make it ccnlormabse with tbe ovi* ginálj (note)
    
    Jn thjs case a judgment was recovered by the plaintiff-in an action of ejectment ifi the late general court, at May term 1790.
    
      Mayer for the plaintiff,
    moved the court, that the term of- the demise laid in the declaration be enlarged to one -hundred years. He cited Vicars vs. Bayden, 2 Cowp, 841, and Turner et al. ys. Worthington et al, in this court Jun<? term 1817, 
      . "
    
    
      
      
         Turney et al. vs. Worthington et al. in this court at June term 15)7, was, on an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery, on a bill of injunction filed in December 1803, by the appellants, to stay proceedings at law on a judgment recovered in an action of ejectment by the appellees’ lessee against the appellants, in the laic general court at May term 1802, and affirmed on writ of error in the late court of appeals at November 1803, and for other relief The chancellor* by his decree, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the bill. «An appeal was brought to this court; and the decree having been affirmed* *
      
        Taney, for the appellees, moved the ^ourt at this f?rm, for an enlargement of the term of the demise stated in tie declaration of ejectment, it having expired. The object was to enable the plaintiff at law to pioceed on his judgment, by issuing a writ of habere facias 'possessionem. He cited Tickars vs Hayden, 2 Cowp. $4*1, and the acts of assembly of 1805, ch. 05, s. 8, 18, 28, 39,and 1806, ch. 4¡1, s é.
      
      
        
        nr . ~ , t, . . , . , martin, for the appellants, resisted the motion-, ano contended COUFt bad no power over the records ol the laLe general court an^ court of appeals, so as to make amendments or grant the motion He doubted whether either of those courts, if in, ex^stence; could allow the amendment to be made filler IQ years. Be cited Hunter vs, Fairfax, I Munf. 218, 237. l.Cranck, 631 a §». Q ^ * ‘ - " ■
      Tawey, in reply, referred. I he courtlo the application made to coult at J,jne term 18)6, by Holmes, to have the record of an ojd deed in 1737 corrected so as to make it cQnforipa* vv’lh ^le oi igtnal, there being a mistak e in one of the courses^ wheie the court ordered the correction to be made*
      Cwse, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court, 
        . The of the clause in the act of 1805, ch. 65, s. 18, are full and comprehensive, directing the records qí the general court for the western shot e, (mcaninjrtQe recoi ds of proceedings ol that court,} to be deposited with the clerk ol the coup oi appeals for the wesfei n sbor0, and kept, in the came manlier, as the records of the court of appeals for the western shore, are kept* By the act qF 4d» s all executions which have issued, or shall issue judgments oi the gem ral court, shall have thesame effect, and may be proceeded on in the same manner, as executions on iudo merits of the.courl of appeals. This is a plain recognition of the judgments of the general court, being records of the court ofapaníí £'ues validity and legal operation to the acts ol the. clerk of the court ot appeals who issued executions, if the re* cords of the general court are considered as the records of the court ot appeals, to enable the clerk O' that court to issue execulipns theieon, q fortiori, I hey must be considered as th^ records court ot appeals, tp enable the court oi appeals to do an act tiecessai y for the attainment of justice, in a case loo in which, no ^ae^lCs or negljgence can he imputed to the plaintiff, and the has been occasioned by the defendants, aided by the" inter* position of the court ot chancery in exercise of its equitable inrisd*ction. II the court have the power to grant the enlai gemenfc of the term, it ought to be exercised, because justice requires ?r*
      ^le court order the term to be enlarged, by striking out the word ic??, wherever it occurs in t he declaration, in ejsclment, and inserting m lieu thereof the word thirty.
      
      MOTION GUANTED« .
    
    
      
      
        .) Buchanan, Martin and Horsey, J, present.
    
   MOTION OVERRULED.  