Though a judgment is to some purposes a merger of the contract, and con stitutes a new debt, yet when the essential rights of the parties are influenced by the nature of the original contract, the court will look into the judgment for the purpose of ascertaining what the original contract was.
The principle of the cases last cited has been frequently enunciated. In Clark v. Rowling, 3 N. Y. 216, 53 Am. Dec. 290, Hurl bert, J., said that "a judgment, instead of be ing regarded strictly as a new debt, is some times held to be merely the old debt, in a new form, so as to prevent a technical merg er from working injustice." In Betts v. Bagley, 12 Pick. (Mass,) 572, Shaw, C. J., said : "Although a judgment, to some pur poses, is considered as a merger of the for mer, and as constituting a new cause of ac tion, yet when the essential rights of par ties are influenced by the nature of the orig inal contract, the court will look into the judgment for the purpose of ascertaining what the nature of such original cause of ac tion was. Any other decision would carry the technical doctrine of merger to an incon venient extent and cause it to work injus tice."
Foam. The form of the judgment varies according to the nature of the action and the circumstances, such as default, verdict, etc., under which it is obtained. Anciently great particularity was required in the en made upon the judgment roll; but now, even in the English practice, the drawing up the judgment roll is generally neglected, ex cept in cases where it is absolutely neces sary, as where it is desirable to give the pro ceedings in evidence on some future occa sion; Smith, Act. 169. In this country the roll is rarely if ever drawn up, the simple entry on the trial list and docket, "judgment for plaintiff," or "judgment for defendant," being all that is generally considered neces sary ; and though the formal entries are in theory still required to constitute a complete record, yet if such record should subsequent ly be needed for any purpose, it may be made up after any length of time from the skeleton entries upon the docket and trial list. See Wilkins v. Anderson, 11 Pa. 399. When the record is thus drawn up in full, the ancient formalities must be observed, at least in a measure.