Genestelle v. Waugh
| Decision Date | 31 March 1848 |
| Citation | 11 Mo. 367 |
| Parties | GENESTELLE v. WAUGH & CORTHRON. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
DARBY & R. M. FIELD, for Plaintiff. The warrants of attorney authorizing the entering of three judgments by confession, do not justify one entire judgment for the sum of the three It is material to observe, that each power authorizes judgment to be entered for the amount of the note. Warrants of attorney are always construed strictly when they authorize a confession of a judgment, as the following cases will show: In Paris v. Wilkerson, the warrant was to enter judgment on bond. It was entered on a mutuatus. The judgment was set aside as irregular. 7 Term R. 133. In Harvie v. Wade, the warrant authorized judgment against three, but only two signed it and judgment was taken against the two. But it was held irregular. 1 Chitty, 322. So, in Gee v. Lane, it was held that a warrant to enter judgment against two on a joint and several bond, did not authorize a judgment against the survivor. 15 East, 592; Rowe v. Alderson, 7 Taunt. 453. So, in Cowie v. Allaway, it was decided that where the party holding the warrant dies, his executor cannot enter up the judgment. 8 Term R. 257; Henshall v. Multheney, 7 Bing. 337. In Gayle v. Foster, it was decided that judgment must be entered for the precise amount mentioned in the warrant. A. R. 125. In Stevens v. Duberry, it is said that judgment by confession must strictly pursue the torms of the cognovit. A. R. 379. From the foregoing cases, it appears that the question is not whether the party has sustained any injury by the departure from the power, but whether the judgment entered is identically the same as that mentioned in the power. It is consequently of no moment that the responsibility of the defendant is not increased, nor that the mode adopted might be really beneficial to him. The real difficulty with the plaintiff below lies in this, that he has done what the terms of his power do not warrant. The authority to confess judgment for another must appear on the record. Campbell v. Cooper, 1 Hulet, 142; Tucker v. Gregg, 1 South. 161.
GEYER, for Defendants. The decision complained of is the refusal of the court below to set aside a judgment by confession, entered 22nd April, 1845 (April term, 1845), on the application of the plaintiff in errar made at a succeeding term (9th April, 1846), on the ground that the judgment was confessed on three several notes and warrants of attorney. No error of fact is alleged so as to justify the motion as a substitute for a writ of error coram nobis, which has been allowed in some cases. Nor is the matter complained of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jarrett v. Sippely
... ... 38. (3) The ... judgment sued on shows upon its face that it was a judgment ... by confession--nothing more, nothing less. Waugh v ... Corchorn, 11 Mo. 367. (4) Judgments on confession on ... warrant of attorney, if valid in State were taken, are ... recognized and treated ... ...
-
First National Bank of Kansas City v. White
...authority; and the statute relative to the formal confessions of judgment has no application to the case. R. S. 1899, sec. 789; Genestelle v. Waugh, 11 Mo. 367; Teel Yost, 128 N.Y. 402; Boyd v. Ward Furniture Co., 38 Mo.App. 210; Adler v. Anderson, 42 Mo.App. 189; Houpt v. Bohl, 75 S.W. 470......
- Missouri Bridge & Iron Company v. Pacific Lime & Gypsum Company Missouri Bridge & Iron Company
-
First Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. White
...Crim, 162 Mo. 544, 63 S. W. 489, 54 L. R. A. 502, 85 Am. St. Rep. 521, and cases cited. We have been cited to the case of Genestelle v. Waugh & Corthorn, 11 Mo. 367, as a case in point. We have examined the original files in that case. The point here raised was neither raised nor discussed ......