Reed v. Hamet
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL from the common pleas of Eñe county. The question arose upon the appropriation of the proceeds of the sale of the real estate of D. C. Barrett upon execution, whether a judgment confessed by the defendant before the prothonotary upon the docket, without any writing filed, was a valid judgment, and a lien on the defendant’s real estate. The court below (Shippen, president) decided that it was.
1Per curiam
—The power of the prothonotary to sign judgment rests on a statutory grant of it when that officer was ex officio a judge of the common pleas, which has not been revoked. The question, then, is, simply whether a defendant may appear before him and *442confess judgment in person; a question that will not bear a moment’s consideration, for he certainly may do in person whatever he can by deed authorise another to do for him: and judgments in vacation by confession, on warrant of attorney, have been recognized as valid since the foundation of the province. But judgments by confession, on the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. Safeguard Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- St. Bartholomew's Church v. WoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Cromwell v. Bank of PittsburgU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1853
- Hunter v. EddyMontana Supreme Court · 1891
- State Ex Rel. Kennedy v. HubbardMontana Supreme Court · 1926