
    *Lessee of Henry Darby v. William J. Carson.
    An order of maintenance under the bastardy act is a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and can not be collaterally impeached.
    Such order may be enforced by execution as in other cases, the security given under the act being resorted to only in case of the inability of the defendant.
    Ejectment. From Hamilton, The lessor of the plaintiff ciaimed tile under a sheriff’s deed upon a sale made on execution, under the following judgment in the Common Pleas, at August term, 1825, upon ■a complaint under the bastardy act, viz. : “ Therefore it is considered and adjudged by the court, that said Margaret Moore recover against the said J. D. Carson the sum of two hundred dollars, to be paid in eight annual instalments as follows, to wit, (specifying the times of payment,) together with eighteen dollars and sixty-three cents for her costs and charges, by her about her suit in this behalf expended, by the court now here to the said plaintiff with her assent adjudged ; and that she have execution thereof.” Security for the performance of this order was given according to the statute. The defendant objected to the execution as void, inasmuch as no execution could issue upon the judgment. A verdict was taken subject to the opinion of the court upon the law arising on this state of fact.
    C. Fox, for the defendant,
    contended, the execution was void. The statute requires a bond with security to be given to perform the order, and remedy must be sought by suit on the bond ; and the only course in case he refuse, provided for in the law, is to commit the defendant to jail until he comply with the order. 2 Ch. St. 1423. There is no provision for execution, but when the bond is given the order is satisfied.
    O. M. Spencer, for the plaintiff,
    insisted that decision of the Common Pleas, in the bastardy case, concluded the whole matter, and was a final judgment, and upon common principles to be enforced by execution. In Co. Lit. 154 a. 289 b. an execution is defined to be “ the obtaining the actual possession of any thing acquired by judgment of law.” It is called ilfunctus et finis leges.” Without it a judgment would be worse than a nullity. Wherever power is given to a court to make an order or render, a judgment, the grant ex vi termini includes the means of enforcing it by execution. The statute supposes the order pronounced, when the accused is present, and seeks to hold the person until security be given to perform the order, and Whence orders him committed till he find security.- This is cumulative ‘only, the omission to require security would not vitiate the order, nor will the entry of it throw the plaintiff upon a new suit against the security on the bond, if the money can be made of the person who should pay on execution without. But the award of execution in this case is a judicial act, upon a subject and between parties within the jurisdiction of the court, and the error, if any, can not be enquired into collaterally. 3 Ohio, 257, 561, 305.
   By the Court,

Wood, Judge.

The proceedings in the court o£ Common Pleas are founded on-the act for the maintenance and support of illegitimate children. 2 Ch. St. 1423. The sixth section of this act provides, “ that if the jury shall find the defendant guilty, he shall be judged the putative father of said child, and shall stand charged with the maintenance thereof, in such a sum, or sums, as the court shall order and direct, with the payment of costs of prosecution, and. the court shall require the reputed father to give security to .perform the aforesaid order,” etc.

It is contended for the defendant, that no execution can issue upon an order of the court under this law, the remedy being on the bond only ; and therefore, that the execution in this case and the proceedings under it are void. It must be admitted that the court entry upon the verdict, varies from the usual form, and is not in exact conformity with the statute, which requires that “ the defendant shall be adjudged the reputed father of said child, and be required to give security” for its maintenance, as the court shall direct. In the record before us, there is no express adjudication against the defendant as “ the reputed father,” nor requisition of security; but a direct judgment for the recovery of two hundred dollars in instalments. Suppose the entry erroneous, it can not be denied that the court has jurisdiction of the subject and of the parties ; therefore they are not void, but must be regarded valid until reversed upon writ of error. 3 Ohio, 305.

The question then arises, Does this judgment or order authorize the execution and sale of the land in dispute ? There is a formal judgment for two hundred dollars and costs, which seems authorized by the provision of the statute, that “the defendant shall stand charged iu such sum or sums as the court shall direct.” This entry is a judicial act, and contains an express award of execution. This is a judgment, and valid until reversed. It is the determination of the law on the ■facts of the case, Jac. L. Die. title judgment. An execution is properly defined “ the obtaining of actual possession of any thing acquired, by judgment *of law; and necessarily goes on all final judg ments. Co. Lit. 154, 289. There may, it is true, be special cases, requiring special executions ; but in ordinary cases, the right to have the ubual execution follows every final judgment of course.

But it is said, the security by bond in these cases, takes the place ■of execution, and that the only remedy upon the judgment, is upon the bond This by no means follows. We think the bond and security ■only intended as a resort, after an ineffectual attempt to obtain satisfaction by execution. This is analogous to our general policy to subject the security only in case of the inability of the principal debtor. Moreover, we think, the general practice has been to enforce these ■orders by execution, and feel no disposition to change it.

Judgment for the plaintiff.  