Johnson v. Foran

Stone, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant issued on the 20th of April, 1869, out of Baltimore City Court, an attachment on warrant against certain individuals trading as James Foran & Company. This attachment was levied upon certain real estate in the City of Baltimore, and a return thereof duly made by the sheriff of Baltimore City. On the 11th of May, 1869, a judgment of condemnation nisi was also duly entered.

On the 31st of March, 1882, & fieri facias was issued upon thát judgment. This fieri facias the defendants moved to quash, and assigned as the reason therefor, that said execution was issued more than twelve years after the rendition of said judgment. The Court below quashed the writ of fi. fa. and from the granting that motion the plaintiff appealed to this Court. It has been insisted by the plaintiff that the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run on a judgment of con ⁴⁶² demnation in an attachment case, until the expiration of a year and a day from the date of the judgment, because the plaintiff cannot within that period issue an execution without giving the bond required by the Statute.

The words of our Statute of Limitations include all judgments whatever, whether inpersonam or in rem. The Statute begins to run not always from the date of the judgment, but in cases where there is a stay of execution, from the expiration of the stay. As soon, however, as the plaintiff is able to reap' the fruits of his judgment by execution, so soon does the Statute begin to operate upon it. This Court, in Walters and Harvey vs. Monroe, 17 Md., 502 , says that the judgment of condemnation is improperly called a condemnation nisi; in fact, it is an absolute judgment, not given upon any condition whatever, but like any other judgment