
    Hunsecker et al. versus Thomas et al.
    Where after service on the mortgagor, and judgment obtained on the mortgage the mortgagor dies, it is not necessary to warn his personal representatives by scire facias before proceeding to execution.
    February 14th 1879.
    Before Sharswood, C. J., Gordon, Paxson, Woodward, Trunkey and Sterrett, JJ. Merctjr, J., absent.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 4, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1876, No. 51.
    Ejectment by Peter Hunsecker and others, heirs at law of William C. Hunsecker, deceased, against Charles J. Thomas and others, terre-tenants, for certain premises in the city of Philadelphia. Charles J. Thomas, on April 4th 1878, conveyed the land in dispute to William C. Hunsecker, taking from him a mortgage for a large part of the purchase-money. On January 3d 1874, Thomas issued a scire facias on this mortgage, and on January 26th 1874, judgment was obtained thereon. On March 21st 1874, William C. Hunsecker died, intestate. On March 25th 1874, Thomas issued an alias levari facias on the judgment obtained on his mortgage, without a previous scire facias to warn the personal representatives of the deceased.
    On April 4th 1874, his death was suggested on the record, and on April 6th, the property was sold at sheriff’s sale to Thomas for $500. At the trial, the foregoing facts having appeared, the plaintiffs asked the court to charge as follows :
    It being admitted by the defendants that William C. Hunsecker, under whom the plaintiffs claim, died on the 21st day of March 1874, and that the plaintiffs are his heirs, the sheriff’s sale under the writ of alias levari facias mentioned in the record, given ■ in evidence by the defendants, passed no title to the defendants, the said records not showing any notice of the issuing thereof to the plaintiffs or any of them, or any warning to the personal representatives of said William C. Hunsecker to show cause against the issuing of the same, and that the verdict must therefore be in favor of the plaintiffs.
    The court, Elcock, J., answered :
    “ I decline so to charge, but on the contrary direct you to find a verdict for the defendants/’ ■
    The plaintiffs took this writ and assigned this action for error.
    A. L. Hennershotz and F. Spencer Miller, for plaintiffs in error.
    —This case differs from Taylor v. Young, 21 P. F. Smith 81. In that case the judgment had been obtained on two returns of nihil; in this the writ of scire facias was served on defendant.
    
      L. JR. Fletcher, for defendants in error.
    This case is ruled by Taylor v. Young, supra.
    
   The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered, March 17th 1879,

Per Curiam.

There is no difference upon which any reasonable distinction can be drawn between the facts of this case and Taylor v. Young, 21 P. F. Smith 81. Upon the authority of that case

Judgment affirmed.  