Kindig v. March

Indiana Supreme Court

Kindig v. March

15 Ind. 248, 1860 Ind. LEXIS 384

DecidedDecember 8, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Ind. 248 (Kindig v. March) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kindig v. March, 15 Ind. 248, 1860 Ind. LEXIS 384 (Ind. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Perkins, J.

Kinclig gave a power of attorney to Ghamberlain, to confess a judgment in favor of March, for a debt due to him.

The power was duly executed and proved. "We are satisfied of this from an examination of the record.

B. Ileaih, for appellant. E. M. Ghamberlain, for appellee.

When judgment was about to be entered in execution of the power, Eindig presented to the Court a revocation of it, on the ground that it was for too large an amount. The Court disregarded the revocation, and directed the judgment to be entered.

■ A power of attorney to confess judgment is not revocable by act of the party. See Story on Agency, § 477; 2 Arch-bold’s Pr. p. 21. But if any fact affecting its validity be alleged, the Court will permit an issue to be formed and tried, and act in the premises accordingly, annulling the warrant or reducing the amount of judgment upon it, as the case proved may require. In this case, the defendant may yet have the judgment corrected, on complaint filed and heard, as in other cases. Archbold, supra; 15 Petersdorf, pp. 366, 367, 368.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Perkins, J.

Kinclig gave a power of attorney to Ghamberlain, to confess a judgment in favor of March, for a debt due to him.

The power was duly executed and proved. "We are satisfied of this from an examination of the record.

B. Ileaih, for appellant. E. M. Ghamberlain, for appellee.

When judgment was about to be entered in execution of the power, Eindig presented to the Court a revocation of it, on the ground that it was for too large an amount. The Court disregarded the revocation, and directed the judgment to be entered.

■ A power of attorney to confess judgment is not revocable by act of the party. See Story on Agency, § 477; 2 Arch-bold’s Pr. p. 21. But if any fact affecting its validity be alleged, the Court will permit an issue to be formed and tried, and act in the premises accordingly, annulling the warrant or reducing the amount of judgment upon it, as the case proved may require. In this case, the defendant may yet have the judgment corrected, on complaint filed and heard, as in other cases. Archbold, supra; 15 Petersdorf, pp. 366, 367, 368.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Ind. 248, 1860 Ind. LEXIS 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kindig-v-march-ind-1860.