
    Thomas S. Land, Administrator de bonis non of Phebe Pitts, deceased, vs. Jordan Williams.
    The circuit court cannot issue a writ of error coram nolis, or entertain jurisdiction of it, to correct an error of fact in a judgment,' rendered in the high court of errors and appeals, in affirmance of one in the circuit court; the writ must be addressed to the court in which the judgment was rendered, which alone has jurisdiction of it.
    
      IN error from the circuit court of Yalabusha county; Hon. Francis M. Rogers, judge.
    Thomas S. Land filed bis petition in the circuit court, alleging that on the 15th of November, 1843, a judgment in that court was rendered against George A. Thompson, Phebe Pitts, and Isaac Thompson, for $2459'53. In May, 1844, the case was taken to the high court of errors and appeals, and while pending there Phebe Pitts died, having appointed, by her last will, George A. Thompson, her executor, who qualified, &c. In November, 1846, while the suit was pending in the high court, the executor died, and Land was appointed administrator de bonis non, cum testamento annexo, in December of that year.
    On the 20th of November, 1846, Thompson and Pitts being both dead, the judgment below was affirmed, and the high court ordered judgment against Thompson, as the adminj^Lrato^of Pitts, though in fact he, when alive, was her execut, her administrator; and also rendered judgment aga| defendants and sureties in the writ of error bond
    In January, 1847, an execution on this judgr anee, issued against all the parties by the clerkf < court of Yalabusha county, was levied on slaves, Phebe Pitts in her lifetime, then in petitioner’s hands'*the sheriff would sell them unless restrained. The petition pTayed for writ of error coram nobis and supersedeas, which were granted, returnable to the next term of the circuit court of Yalabusha county, upon the petitioner’s entering into bond, <fcc.
    At the return term of the writ, the circuit court, on motion and upon argument, dismissed the petition, writ and superse-deas, and the plaintiff therein sued out this writ of error.
    
      Acee, for plaintiff in error,
    Cited Swiggart v. Harbee, 4 Scam. 364; Westerwelt v. Lewis, 2 McLean, 511; Smith v. Knowlton, 11 N. Hamp. R. 191; Cres-sedy v. Pickering, Minor, Rep. 137; Griswold v. Stewart, 4Cow. 457; Enos v. Smith, 7 S. & M. 85; Pollard v. Pollard, 4 Monr. 359; Caldwell, ex parte, 5 Pike, 390; Davis, ex parte, lb. 405; Rangely v. Webster, 11 N. Hamp. R. 299.
    
      
      A. H. Davidson, for defendant in error,
    Cited 2 Bac. Abr. 488; 2 Stra. 975; 1 lb. 690; H. & H. 397, n. ; 2 Port: Dig. 653; 2 Bibb, 392; Watson v. Whaley, 1 Litt. 295 ; 7 How. 224; 3 S. & M. 31, 38; 1 How. (Missis.) Rep. 67; Rev-Code, 95, sec. 44; Tunstall v. Walker, 2 S. & M. 638.
    
      Sheppard, on same side,
    In addition, cited Davis v. Helm, 3 S. & M. 34. ■
   Mr. Justice Thachek

delivered the opinion of the court.

A'petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and for the super-sedeas of an execution, was addressed to the judge of the circuit court in and for the county of Yalabusha. By the fiat of the judge, the writ of error and supersedeas were directed to be issued. Upon the hearing of the writ, it was directed by the circuit court to be dismissed.

Upon an inspection of the petition, upon which the writs were directed to be issued, it appears that the error complained of consisted in an erroneous entry of judgment, in a certain cause in the high court of errors and appeals of this state, affirming a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Yalabusha county. The alleged error is as to the character of the parties against whom the judgment was affirmed in this court. But this is of immaterial consideration.

The circuit court had not jurisdiction of the subject matter of this petition. The writ of error coram nobis, or quce coram nobis resident, to correct error in matter’of fact only, is addressed to the same court where the judgment was rendered, and consequently the jurisdiction was in this court. It is so called from its being founded on the record and process which are remaining in such court. 2 Tidd’s Prac. 1137. And so the circuit court decided correctly in dismissing it.

Judgment affirmed.  