
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1803.
    Spann v. Golden.
    In an action upon a promissory note, the same proof of the cause of ac« tion is required upon the execution of a writ of inquiry, as upon th® trial of an issue. [Sed vide acts of 1809, p. 29.]
    Motion for a new trial. Action of assumpsit, tried before Brevard, J. in Sumter district Plaintiff had obtained an order for judgment, and upon the execution of his writ of inquiry, was allowed by the court to give a promissory note, a copy of which was filed with the declaration, in evidence, without any proof of the hand writing of the maker, or of the subscribing witness. This was the ground stated for a new trial; and Matiiis for the defendant, insisted that the practice of oitr courts had always been to require the same proof of notes upon the execution of writs of inquiry, as upon the trial of issues; which practice was well founded, reasonable, and wisely cautious, and therefore ought not to be departed from.
    Richardson, contra.
    
    The default of the defendant acknowledges the justice of the plaintiff’s demand ; and the only reason for producing the note in evidence, is to see whether it is the same declared on, and whether any part of it has been paid. In England, it is not necessary to execute a writ of inquiry in such cases ; but the court refers the case to a master, to ascertain the sum due. 4 T. R. 205. 1 Esp. Dig 170. Kyd on Bills, 152. 3 T. R. 301. 2Str. 1149. Barnes 233. Bull. 278. 3 Wils. 135. Doug. 802. 1 B1 Rep. 252, contra. There is no reason why a judgment by default iu the case of a note, should not be as conclusive evidence of the acknowledgment of the note, or the truth of it, as in the cuse of a bond. In the case of a bond, the plaintiff is entitled to enter up final judgment, without proof of the bond, unless the defendant will move to set aside the order for judgment at the next court after ills obtained, and plead instanter. The legislature, by a lale act, seems to have been desirous to facilitate the proof of bonds and notes; and the courts will not certainly be astuta to require unnecessary proof of them.
    Act of J802, 2 Faust, 453.
   By the court.

The practice has ahvaj's been to require the same proof of notes upon the execution of writs of inquiry, as upon the trial of issues. This practice may have originated in some good cause; and ought not to be altered without necessity, or pome very cogent reasons,

New trial granted.  