Rabe v. Heslip
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the .Common Pleas of Washington county. Oct. 26. On the 23d of May, 1842, the prothonotary entered a judgment against the plaintiff in error^fqr $600, with interest from April 13, 1’839, «by virtue of a power filed,” which was as follows: « Know all men by these presents, that I, Jacob Rabe, of, &c.,for the natural affection and love of my daughter Christine Rabe, do order that, at the decease of myself, six hundred dollars to -be paid to her, her heirs or…
Read the full summary
In error from the .Common Pleas of Washington county. Oct. 26. On the 23d of May, 1842, the prothonotary entered a judgment against the plaintiff in error^fqr $600, with interest from April 13, 1’839, «by virtue of a power filed,” which was as follows: « Know all men by these presents, that I, Jacob Rabe, of, &c.,for the natural affection and love of my daughter Christine Rabe, do order that, at the decease of myself, six hundred dollars to -be paid to her, her heirs or assigns, by my heirs, executors, or administrators. And from this date, that the said sum of money is to be on lawful…
1Opinion of the Court
Peb. ¡Curiam.
This writing certainly gave no power to any one but the. executors or administrators. A warrant to confess judgment contains not only a, grant of the authority expressed clearly and intelligibly, but a designation, by name or description, of the person who is to execute it. The act of Assembly merely substitutes the prothonotary, though not named or described, for an attorney of the court; but it supplies no deficiency of the power given in the first instance. This writing expresses no more than a vague desire that it be recorded, which is certainly an insufficient authority for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Helvete v. RappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. Safeguard Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968