Prior to C. C. P., when a plaintiff wanted to sue out execution upon a judgment, he had nothing to do but to go to the Clerk of the Court and get it, or tell him to issue it, returnable to the next term.
The practice was the same under C. C. P., except that the Clerk made the execution returnable before himself, instead of to the next term, and except that when the judgment Avas three years old, he could not issue'execution at all, unless the plaintiff swore or otherwise proved that the judgment had not been satisfied. C. C. P., sec. 256.
All that is plain under C. C. P.; but then comes the statute suspending the C. C. P., and providing that executions shall be returnable to the next term after they are issued, instead of before the Clerk, and shall be tested as of the preceding *664term, wbicb restores tbe old practice as it was prior to C. C. P., except that it still requires the affidavit as under C. C. P.
And so tbe question is, whether inasmuch as it is now required that the execution shall be returnable to the next term, and tested as of the preceding te™, it is not to be implied that the application for the execution and the affidavit must be to the Judge in term time ? And whether the Judge in term time, and not the Clerk in vacation, must not order the execution to issue.
His Honor was of the opinion, that under the statute suspending C. C. P., the execution could only be issued by order of the Judge in term time. Bat. Rev., chap. 18, sec. 7. In that we are of the opinion there is error. The object of that statement was to prevent the hasty return of the execution to the Clerk, and to make it returnable to the next term of the court, hut still it is to be issued by the Clerk, without any Order of the Judge in or out of term.
There is error. This will be certified.
PER CüRIAM. Judgment reversed.