Connay v. Halstead
| Decision Date | 17 March 1873 |
| Citation | 73 Pa. 354 |
| Parties | Connay <I>versus</I> Halstead. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before READ, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and MERCUR, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., at Nisi Prius
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna county. No. 26, to January Term 1873.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
R. B. Little, for plaintiff in error.—The prothonotary can enter judgment on a warrant only for the amount which on the face of the instrument appears to be due: Act of February 24th 1806, sect. 28, 4 Sm. L. 278, 1 Br. Purd. 825, pl. 32. The warrant must contain a clear delegation of authority: Rabe v. Heslip, 4 Barr 139; White v. Shriver, 2 Watts 471.
J. B. & A. H. McCollum, for defendant in error.
By the Act of 24th February 1806, Brightly's Purdon 577, pl. 32, it is made the duty of the prothonotary upon the application of the holder of a bond or other instrument containing a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, "to enter judgment against the person or persons who executed the same for the amount, which on the face of the instrument may appear to be due," &c. This act does not confer upon the prothonotary all the power of an attorney at law to confess a judgment, but only authorizes him without the agency of an attorney to enter a judgment in the way specified in the act, to wit, for the amount which from the face of the instrument may appear to be due. This would probably embrace a case where the sum due can be ascertained by calculation from the face of the writing, upon the maxim, id certum est quod certum reddi potest. But in this case the sum or amount due, could by no possible calculation be made to appear from the face of the instrument. It was an agreement for the sale of a tract of land by loosely-stated boundaries and no quantity stated. The price was to be at the rate of ten dollars an acre, and the number of acres was to be ascertained by a survey. Until the number should be thus determined, a matter wholly outside of the face of the paper, the amount of the purchase-money could not be known. The prothonotary had no guide, therefore, in entering the judgment. In fixing the sum he must rely upon evidence outside of the writing, and this would not be according to the letter or spirit of the act, which intended that a judgment should be entered only on the acknowledgment of the party himself contained in the writing. It is evident the law did not intend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co.
...judgment under the Act of 1806, the amount due must be shown on or determined by calculation from the face of the instrument. Connay v. Halstead, 73 Pa. 354 (1873); Meyers & Joly Freiling, 81 Pa.Super. 116 (1923); Better Built Door Co. v. Oates, 165 Pa.Super. 465, 69 A.2d 425 (1949). When t......
-
Jameson Piano Co. v. Earnest
...was order discharging rule to strike off judgment. Reversed. Francis Chapman, with him S. Spencer Chapman, for appellant, cited: Connay v. Halstead, 73 Pa. 354; Grover & Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U.S. 287; Harris v. Mercur, 202 Pa. 313; Maurer v. Brennan, 58 Pa.Super. 587; Automa......
-
Automobile Banking Corp. v. Duffy-Mullen Motor Co.
...installments of principal were due. It is not clear which is intended; and if not clear, the prothonotary may not fix the amount: Connay v. Halstead, 73 Pa. 354; Meyers & Joly Freiling, 81 Pa.Super. 116, 118. The clause " subject to all the terms and conditions stipulated in the within note......
-
Edward F. Gerber Co. v. Thompson
...142 Pa. St. 253; Little v. Dyer, 138 Ill. 272; Fortune v. Bartolomei, 164 Ill. 51; Holden v. Bull, 1 Penrose & Watts (Pa.) 460; Connay v. Halstead, 73 Pa. 354; 11 Ency. of Pleading & Practice, 981. The court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to confess judgment and permitting the de......