
    Camp v. Gainer.
    As a general rule an equivocal expression in pleading is to be construed against the party using it; yet when die opposite party lias pleaded over, that, it is said, is an admission that the expression is to bo taitón in that sense which will support the previous pleading.
    Where thero is a variance between the petition and writ the objection should be taken specially and not by general demurrer.
    A scire facias under our statute to revive a judgment is a scire facias guare cxccuf ionem non, and the judgment should bo simply tiiat the plaintiff have execution, &c., and not that tie recover the amount of die onginal judgment and interest thereon.
    Error from Harrison. The defendant in error filed his petition in the District Court of Harrison county, alleging that he. obtained a judgment against t lie plaintiff in error in that court, at the Fall Term thereof, 18-14, for the sum of six hundred and forty-eight 89-100 dollars, which judgment remained unsatisfied, praying that a scire jacios issue t,o the defendant therein, who resided in the county of Upshur, to show cause why execution should not issue, ole. The writ accordingly issued. The venue of tlie writ vas laid in Harrison county, and it was directed to the sheriff of Upshur comity, reciting that “whereas, on the 4th day of November, 1S44, in our District Court of said county, Samuel Gainer recovered judgment,” &c., reciting the judgment.
    
      The defendant appeared, demurred generally, and prayed that the writ he quashed. lie further pleaded, denying that there was any such judgment as that described.
    Tlie plaintiff offered in evidence tlie judgment described in tlie petition, to which tlie defendant objected, but tlie court overruled the objection and proceeded to render judgment for the principal sum of the original judgment with interest. The defendant brought a writ of error.
    
      Clough íS’ Lane and Everett, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. P. Hill, for defendant in error.
   Wheeler, J.

It is objected to the judgment, 1st. That the scire facias describes a judgment as having been rendered in Upshur county, the word “ said ” in the recital of the writ referring, it is insisted, to the last antecedent, which is Upshur.

2d. That tlie judgment is erroneously entered for tlie debt and interest.

As a general rule, an equivocal expression in pleading is to be construed against tlie party using it; yet when tlie opposite party has pleaded over, that, it is said, is an admission that the expression is to be taken in that sense which will support the previous pleading. And even in an indictment the word “said” will not be referred to the last antecedent, where the sense requires that it should be referred to some prior antecedent. (1 Chit. PL, 238-9.) Wo think in the present case it. is to be referred to the venue rather than to the address of the writ, the former indicating the county in which tlie judgment was of record, and tiie latter that in which the defendant resided.

Moreover, the defendant was advised by tlie petition for the writ in what county the judgment was rendered which it was proposed to revive. If there was a variance between the petition and writ of which he would have taken advantage', he should not have demurred'generally, but should have taken liis objection specially, so as that the plaintiff might have been afforded an opportunity to amend.

2. The remaining objection is well taken. It is erroneous [374] to enter judgment for debt or damages on a scire facias; the judgment should be simply that the plaintiff have execution, <fcc.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and such judgment be here rendered as the court below ought to have rendered.

Ordered accordingly.  