Upon denial of these motions judgment was then entered by the court, usually by signing of the judgment by a proper officer of the court, for the plaintiff (quod rccupercl) or for the defendant (nil capiat) in accordance with the verdict. The successful party was then entitled to enforce the judgment by the writ of execution. (See EXECUTION; JUDGMENT; ATTACHMENT; AR REST; DEBTOR; etc.) If, however, the unsuccess ful party deemed the judgment erroneous in law, he was at liberty to remove the entire record of the ease to a higher court for review upon suing out a writ of error, which, like the original writ, was issued out of Chancery. See ERROR, WRIT OF.
Such in its barest outline was the method of procedure developed by the common-law courts. The material elements of the system, except pos sibly those of the system of pleading, remain unchanged, although there has been great modi fication of the minor details, chiefly in the direc tion of greater simplicity. The first of these changes was in the use of the original writ. By the use of a series of fictions the common-law courts came ultimately to dispense with the original writ as a means of acquiring jurisdic tion,and the action wa-s regularly begun by the is suance by the courts of law of their judicial pro cess, the summons directly, instead of the original writ. In each of the United States there are now courts established by statute having general ju risdiction over actions and authorized to acquire jurisdiction over the person of litigants upon service of its summons or writ. The summons is still issued in the name of the court, but usual ly attorneys as officers of the court are author ized to issue the summons directly without appli cation to the court. This is true also of many other forms of process, as, for example, subpoenas to appear and testify, and the writ of execution.
The various changes in the system of pleading, which are more substantial than any which have taken place in procedure proper, have been noted under that title, but the system of pleading has been indirectly modified by changes in procedure.
Thus the remedy for formal defects, which was formerly by demurrer, is now by statute generally a motion to strike out immaterial matter or to make the pleading more definite and certain. A party may be required to define and limit the scope of his pleading by a motion for an order directing him to give a bill of particulars (q.v.) of his claim. There are also various forms of relief incidental to the proceeding which have been created anew or adopted from the equity practice by statute; as, for example, the examination of witnesses before trial or by commission, the practice of referring some part or all of the controversy to a referee having substantially the power of court, and the granting of various provisional remedies, such as attachment and arrest. The extent to which execution against the person re quiring the arrest of a defendant for non-payment of a judgment may be used has been much limited by modern statute, hut in many States the plain tiff is given a statutory right to examine the judgment debtor as to his resources and give an appropriate remedy by receiver or otherwise by which the application of moneys due to the judg ment debtors to payment of the judg ment may be compelled. The practice on appeal has also been simplified, mere notice of the ap peal served upon the appellant's opponent being all that is generally required to perfect the appeal.
Common-law courts also exercised jurisdiction in personant by what were known as the extraor dinary writs—certiorari (q.v.), habeas corpus (q.v.), quo warranto (q.v.), and (q.v.).
For the procedure in criminal actions, see PROSECUTOR; PROSECUTION; 1 N DIC"FAIEN T ; JURY; GRAND JURY; PUN I SIENIENT, etc.