Parker v. Poole
| Decision Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Parties | PARKER v. POOLE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Where one made his note payable to another or bearer, and authorized any Attorney at Law to confess judgment against him for the amount of the note before a magistrate of Harrison county, Texas, if the note was not paid when due, and the note being due and unpaid, the payee being an Attorney at Law, confessed judgment as aforesaid against the maker in favor of another, without notice, it was held there was no error.
The general rule is that whatever a person can do himself, he can do by attorney.
Where a petition for a certiorari admits a sum due or the like, as where usury is alleged, the petitioner must offer to pay the amount acknowledged to be due, or to do the equity which he seeks, or the petition will be dismissed.
Appeal from Harrison. The appellant had, with one Jackson Haggerty, given two notes to James M. Morphis or bearer, for eighty-nine 12-100 dollars each, with a warrant of attorney indorsed, authorizing any Attorney at Law to confess judgment against him for the amount of the note, before a magistrate of Harrison county, Texas, if the notes be not paid when due. After maturity Morphis, being an Attorney at Law, appeared before a Justice of the Peace and confessed judgment on one of the notes in favor of Thomas G. Sharp, and in the other in favor of John Poole. The petitions for certiorari charge usury in the transaction, and that Sharp and Poole are suspected to be fictitious persons. On motion, the writs of certiorari were dismissed and the plaintiff appealed.
Clough & Lane, for appellant.
J. M. Morphis, for appellee.
One of the grounds taken here to reverse the judgment is, that an Attorney has not nor can he have any authority under the law to confess judgment for another before a Justice of the Peace; that the statute (Art. 1720) authorizes the party himself to appear without citation and confess judgment, but not to delegate authority to another to perform the act. An answer to this is found in the general maxim, that whatever a man sui juris may do of himself, he may do by another. There are exceptions to the rule. The act, sometimes, from its nature, must be performed by the party himself. But the confession of judgment for a person perfectly competent to do the act himself is no such exception. It may be done as well by an attorney as by the party himself. There is an allegation that the parties, Sharp and Poole, are suspected to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re R.B.
...custody). 20. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 11. 21. Id. 22. Gavenda v. Strata Energy, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 690, 693 (Tex.1986); see also Parker v. Poole, 12 Tex. 86, 87 (1854) ("[T]he general maxim [is] that whatever a man sui juris may do of himself, he may do by 23. See, e.g., Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.......
-
NATHAN A. WATSON CO. v. EMPLOYERS MUT. CAS., 2-06-009-CV.
...years ago remains good law: "The general maxim is that whatever a man sui juris may do of himself, he may do by another." Parker v. Poole, 12 Tex. 86, 87 (1854) (holding that attorney could confess judgment for client before justice of the Watson was required to prove "the date that such pa......
-
First National Bank of Kansas City v. White
... ... 339; Bank v ... Garland (Mich.), 67 N.W. 559; Teel v. Yost, 128 ... N.Y. 387; Grubbs v. Blum, 62 Tex. 426; Holmes v ... Parker, 125 Ill. 478; Wassell v. Reardon, 11 ... Ark. 705; Rapley v. Price, 11 Ark. 713; Parker ... v. Poole, 12 Tex. 86. (3) Judgment rendered on ... ...
-
Nathan A. Watson Company v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 2-06-009-CV (Tex. App. 2/1/2007)
...years ago remains good law: "[T]he general maxim [is] that whatever a man sui juris may do of himself, he may do by another." Parker v. Poole, 12 Tex. 86, 87 (1854) (holding that attorney could confess judgment for client before justice of the Watson was required to prove "the date that suc......