M'Farland v. Irwin

8 Johns. 77
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plea is inadmissible and bad. It is a settled rule, that the defendant cannot plead any matter to a sci- fa. on a judgment which he might have pleaded to the original action, or which existed prior to the judgment. A judgment entered up upon a warrant of attorney is a judgment by confession, and the cases of Bush, assignee of Jones, v. Gower, (Cases temp. Hardwicke, 220.) and of Cooke v. Jones, (Cowp. 727.) were cases of a sci. fa. upon a judgment entered by confession on a warrant of attorney.' The rule is the same whether the judgment was obtained by confession, or default, or upon plea. The remedy in these cases of judgment by confession is by application to the court upon motion, as was done in the case of Jackson v. Mosely, cited by Lord Hardwiche, and in the case from Cowper.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

M'Farland v. Irwin, 8 Johns. 77 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

8 Johns. 77 (M'Farland v. Irwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cloud's Administrator v. Temple's Administrators
6 Del. 14 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1880)
Cloud's Administrator v. Bewley
11 Del. 14 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1880)
Walker v. Donovan
6 Daly 552 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1877)
Foster v. Wood
1 Abb. Pr. 150 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1866)
State v. Kinne
39 N.H. 129 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1859)
Kemp ex rel. Kemp v. Cook
6 Md. 305 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1854)
Griswold v. Stewart
4 Cow. 457 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Share v. Becker
8 Serg. & Rawle 239 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1822)