Martin v. Rex
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
and Bradford on be-J r . - .. . naif or a judgment creditor, obtained a rule to shew cause wliy the judgment entered, by virtue of a warrant of attorney, on the 3d January, 1820, on a bond for 800 dollars, should not be vacated..
Read the full summary
and Bradford on be-J r . - .. . naif or a judgment creditor, obtained a rule to shew cause wliy the judgment entered, by virtue of a warrant of attorney, on the 3d January, 1820, on a bond for 800 dollars, should not be vacated.. It appeared, that on the 4th May, 1818> a judgment was entered in Montgomery county ori the same bond, It was insisted in support of the motion, that the warrant of attorney being merely for the confession of a judgment, it was fully executed on the performance of that act, and that the bond itself was merged in a security of a higher nature, namely, the judgment;…
1Opinion of the Court
. Per Curiam
We do not consider this as a void judgi ment. On the contrary, if a sale had been made under it, the purchaser from the sheriff would have had a good title ; many titles in Pennsylvania depend on this principle. But this judgment was clearly entered irregularly—the warrant, *298was to confess a judgment, which was done in Montgomery county, after which the warrant had no force. There was real estate of the defendant in Montgomery county, and the object of the plaintiff was to bind it, so that he has no right to. complain of hardship in not being permitted to bind the real estate of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hauer's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Hazelett v. FordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Tarbox v. HaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Neff v. BarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1826
- Ulrich v. VoneidaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.