Whether the term "specialty" includes all formal contracts, or only those under seal, excluding contracts of record, is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority. The better authorities define "specialty" as "a writing sealed and delivered, containing some agreement."1 This was undoubtedly its original and primary meaning. But it has been said in some courts that it is used in a "more comprehensive sense as embracing debts upon recognizances, judgments and decrees, and (in England certainly) debts upon statutes."2 In a later case, however, it was said that the term specialty "has no technical meaning that necessarily embraces judgments,"3 and subsequently the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to pass upon the question whether a foreign judgment was a "specialty" or not.4 "A foreign judgment was not considered, like a judgment of a domestic court of record, as a record or a specialty."5

4 Junction R. R. v. Bank, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 226.

5 See Sec. 13, 14.

1 Bouvier Law. Diet. "Specialty"; Black. Com. II., 465; Lane v. Morris, 10 Ga. 162. 167; Davis v. Smith, 5 Ga. 274, 285; 48 Am. Dec. 274, 284; Kimball v. Whitney, 15 Ind. 280; Helm v. Eastland, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 193; Frazer v. Tunis, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 254; Probate Court v. Child, 51 Vt. 82.

2Stockwell v. Coleman. 10 O. S. 33, 40. To the same effect see Seymour v. Street, 5 Neb. 85.

3 Tyler's Executors v. Winslow, 15 0. S. 364, 368.

4 Fries v. Mack, 33 O. S. 52.

5 Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 200. See also to the same effect: Walker v. Witter, 1 Dougl. 1; Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 402; Smith v. Nicolls, 7 Scott 147; 5 Bing. N. C. 208; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. (U. S.) 165; Mills v. Dur-yee, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 481; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462; 6 Am- Dec. 88.