
    [Lancaster,
    May 17, 1824.]
    REIDENAUER, Administrator of SMITH against KILLINGER.
    in error. '
    If in a scire facias on a mortgage, the plaintiff admits by his replication .that the widow of the mortgager is entitled to dower in the mortgaged' premises, and judgment be entered generally for the plaintiff, it is to be understood to have been entered snbject to the widow’s dower;' the entry of the judgment on the docket, having reference to the other parts of the record.
    But if under an execution issued on such judgment, the land is levied on and sold,without regard to the "widow’s dower,, the execution is-erroneous, and must be reversed.
    In the Common Pleas of Lebanon county, to which, this was a writ of error, a scire facias on a mortgage, was issued by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, to which the defendant below filed the following plea:
    
      “ And now November 6th, 1821, the defendant above-named,, comes, &c. and for plea saith, that:the assets of the said Peter Smith, deceased, are insufficient to pay the just debts of the said deceased, and therefore, on behalf of the creditors of the said es-tate, says, that the plaintiff ought not to have and maintain his said suit against him, because he says that the mortgage deed, set forth in the plaintiff’s writ, was obtained by the plaintiff by fraud-,' covin and deceit, with intent to defraud the honest creditors of the said Peter Smith, and without any good or valuable consideration whatever. All which, &c.” The plaintiff replied, “that the mortgage given in this case was bona fide; that on the 22d day of March, 1814, when the said mortgage was given, no creditor of the said Peter Smith existed, who was or could be affected, whatever may have been the consideration for the said mortgage; that no creditor on the said day was or is affected, or injured. All which, &e.”
    A plea in these words was also placed on the record:
    
      “Anne Sy billa Smith, the widow and relict of Dr. Peter Smith, comes and claims dower in the premises above-mentioned, and prays to be admitted a defendant, to defend as to one-third part of said premises, and for plea saith, that the said mortgage was obtained from the said Peter Smith, by fraud, covin and deceit, and without any valuable consideration. All whictx, ”&c. To this plea the plaintiff replied thus: “The plaintiff in this cause, for replication to the above, declares, that the widow is entitled to her thii’ds, or her dowei’, at common law, and that he asks to recover in this suit a judgment subject to the dower at common law, of the widow of Dr. Peter Smith.”
    
    On these pleadings the cause was' tried on the 12th November, 1821, when the juxy returned the following verdict: “That they find for the plaintiff the sum of six hundred dollars, debt, six cents damages, and six cents costs; and also find the assets, remaining in the hands of the defendant, to be thirty seven dollars, and sixty four cents, and a lot yet unsold, valued at forty dollars.” On this verdict judgment was entered, and a levari facias issued, returnable to November Term, 1823, on which the sheriff sold the mortgaged premises.
    The. errors assigned in this Court were,
    1. That the verdict is infoi’mal and illegal.
    2. That the jury have undertaken to judge of matters not submitted-to them.
    3. That the jurors have found, contrary to the express admission of the parties, in their pleadings.
    4. That the judgment is general, and has for ever barred the widow of her right of dower, although it was agreed by the plaintiff that the judgment should lie so entered, as to protect the widow’s dower.
    5. That the execution does not conform to the judgment.
    
      Wright, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Norris and Weidman, contra.
   Per Curiam.

This is a scire facias on a mortgage given by Peter Smith, deceased, to Michael Killinger, the defendant in erroxv The pleadings are of a yeiy extraordinary nature. It appears, however, that the widow of Peter Smith, was admitted as a defendant, and having pleaded, that the mortgage was given without valuable consideration, with a view to defraud her of her dower, the plaintiff confessed' that she was entitled to dower. There were several other pleas put in by the administrator of Peter Smith, on which issues were joined, anda verdict found for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, on which a levari facias was issued, by virtue of which the mortgaged premises were sold. It is assigned for error, that judgment was entered generally for the plaintiff, whereas it ought to have been subject to the widow’s dower. It appears to the court that the judgment is to be understood as being subject to the widow’s dower. The short docket entry of judgment refers to the other part of the record, in which the right of dower is confessed. But then there is eri’or assigned also in the execution, which was not conformable to the judgment. It is the opinion of the court, that this error is fatal. The execution was not conformable to the judgment, and the consequence was, that the land was levied on, and sold, without regard to the widow’s dower. In order to do justice, therefore, to the widow, the execution must be reversed, but the judgment is to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed' and execution reversed.  