
    [*] WARD against EASTLACK.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    The action below was founded on the following state of demand:
    
      
    
    The first meeting of the parties before the justice, the cause was adjourned, and on the day of adjournment the justice made the following entry on the record:
    1808, Jan. 2. Plaintiff met, defendant not appearing; judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for ninety-four dollars and twenty-six cents debt, and sixty-three cents costs, in the absence of the defendant, after examining the account of the plaintiff, and reference had to a former action in my docket.
   By the Court.

Why the defendant below should be answerable for an execution in favor of the plaintiff, against a third person, does not appear in the state of demand; and that not appearing, the state of demand does not contain a legal cause of action upon which a judgment can be sustained.

Judgment reversed.

Cited in Sykes v. Stokes, 1 South. 215.  