PEOVS'N ». 0HB8ÀPKAKB es OHIO CANAL 00. 771 �Section 914 of the Eevisecl Statutes of the United Stateg )rovides that the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of prdceedingB in causes in the circuit courts of the United ytates, such as the present one, shall conform to the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding existing in likd causes in the state courts, so that the questions raised in the present case are to be determined by the practice and lawB which wonld govern in the state courts of Maryland. �One of the grounds of the demurrer and motion to quash ÎB that the writ of sci. fa., in reciting the judgment on the first sci. fa. at the April term, 1867, does not show by proper recitals for what amount judgment was then obtained. Th« present writ, after reciting that by the original judgment the said Macalester had recovered the sum of |5,471.37 for hig damages, and $33.60 for his costs and charges, proceeds: "And, whereas, also at a circuit court of the United States, etc., etc., held, etc., etc., on the first Monday of April, 1867, it was considered that the said Charles Macalester have his execution against the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, for as well ihe damages, costs, and charges aforesaid, as also for the sum of $33.40 for his costs and charges by him sustained by delay of the execution of the judgment aforesaid, as by the record thereof in the said court remaining manifestly appears." �It is to this recital that the objection is addressed. This recital is in the form always, so far as we are advised, used in similar writs in Maryland. It is the form prescribed in Harris' entries, and it seems tb us to be entirely proper. The judgment on a sci. fa. to revive a judgment is not for a cer- tain sum of money then ascertained and entered up, but, although for some purposes it is called a new judgment, it is simply a judgment that the plaintiff have execution against the defendant for the amount of the original judgment and costs, and the additional costs then by the court adjudged. �The vrrit in this caee recites the judgment on the prier sci. fa. exactly as it would be set out in full and formai record of that judgment, (2 Harris' Entries, 140,) and we cannot see ����
