
    [Pittsburg,
    October 1, 1824.]
    DAVIS against JONES.
    IN ERROR.
    The lapse of two years from the return of a scire facias, without any proceeding; on it, does not by our practice, work a discontinuance; and the plaintiff may af-terwards, the proper rules having been entered, take judgment for want of a. plea.
    The plaintiff below, Thomas Jones, issued a seh'e facias post annum, &c., on a judgment which he had bbtained in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, against Joseph Davis, the plaintiff in error.. The writ was returned, made known, &c. but the defendant did not appear. The return was at January term, 1814. At January term, 1816, a rule to plead was laid on the defendant; and afterwards, a second rule, to plead; neither of which having been complied with, a judgment was entered by default.
    
      Biddle, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended, that if the plaintiff does not proceed on his scire facias within a year and a day, it is discontinued, and be must sue out another, 2 Sell. Pr. 189. Van-dcrhuyder v. Gardiner, 9 Johns. 79.
    
      Baldwin, for the defendant in error,
    answered, that by our uniform practice, a summons or scire facias, might lie an indefinite length of time, and judgment be entered upon it.
   Per Curiam.

This is a question of practice, in which we are not governed by the rules of the English courts. In the opinion of the court, the proceedings were according to ancient and long continued practice, and therefore the judgment is to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  