
    David W. Haley vs. Benjamin Williams.
    A party is supposed to be present in court with his process, and any action which merely affects the process itself, can be had without formal notice to that party. But when such action extends to the interests of that party beyond his process, it is necessary that notice should be duly given to him. An execution, therefore, cannot, upon motion, be entered satisfied without notice to the plaintiff.
    EreoR from the circuit court of Madison county; Hon. John H. Rollins, judge.
    This was a motion, made at the May term, 1842, of the circuit court of Madison county, to have satisfaction entered upon several executions, which issued upon judgments rendered in the years 1835 and 1836, in favor of David W. Haley against Benjamin Williams. The court sustained the motion, and ordered satisfaction to be entered upon the executions. The record does not show that any notice was served upon the plaintiff in the executions, or that he was in court either by himself or counsel when the motion was made or tried. The plaintiff now prosecutes this writ of error.
    
      T. C. Tupper, for plaintiff in error.
    I shall take it for granted, as a principle too plain and well settled to require argument, that a judgment of a court, rendered without notice to, or process against the party whose rights are directly affected by the judgment, is void. The order of the circuit court, then, entering satisfaction on the executions in these cases without any previous notice to the plaintiff, is erroneous; and this is the only error relied upon by the plaintiffs.
    Does this error appear in the record! Unquestionably it does. All the proceedings had upon the motion of defendant to enter the executions satisfied, are spread out upon the record • and it does not appear either that the plaintiff had notice of the pendency of the motion, or that he appeared by himself or counsel on the trial. This must appear affirmatively on the record, or the judgment is erroneous.
    This court has decided in Moore v. Cason, 1 How. 53, that when notice is necessary in judicial proceedings, it rests upon the party who seeks a benefit from such proceedings, to show that such notice has been given. See 4 How. 517; 6 Ibid. 275.
    In Englehard v. Sutton, 7 How. 99, this court held, that a judgment had against a party without notice, is not evidence against him in another suit.
    The court will perceive, that unless our view of the case be correct, to wit, that the record should show affirmatively, that plaintiff had notice of the pending motion, he is wholly without remedy, however erroneous or fraudulent the order of the court might be. For not having notice, he has no knowledge of the evidence offered by defendant, nor opportunity to rebut it. He could have no bill of exceptions, by which the error of the court below, on the trial of the motion, could be shown.
   Mr. Justice Thacheh

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court below ordered satisfaction to be entered upon certain executions upon the motion of the defendant, and without notice appearing to have been had upon the plaintiff.

A party is supposed to be present in court with his process, and any action which merely affects the process itself, can be had without formal notice to that party. But where such action extends to the interests of that party beyond his process, it is necessary that notice should be duly given to him. The effect of the judgment sustaining the motion to enter up satisfaction upon the executions, went also to the satisfaction of the judgment upon which those executions issued. This was a state of case which demanded notice to the plaintiff before the step could properly be taken. •

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.  