Reed v. Hamet

4 Watts 441
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1835·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per 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judgment rests on a statutory grant of it when that officer was ex officio a judge of the common pleas, which has not been revoked.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 [442] confess 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 appearance of the party in the office, though not universal, have from time immemorial also been frequent, and their validity has never been contested. On principle and practice, therefore, the money was properly awarded to Hamet’s judgment.

Decree affirmed.

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

Reed v. Hamet, 4 Watts 441 (Pa. 1835).

4 Watts 441 (Reed v. Hamet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Safeguard Mutual Insurance
239 A.2d 824 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)
State Ex Rel. Kennedy v. Hubbard
253 P. 271 (Montana Supreme Court, 1926)
Hunter v. Eddy
28 P. 296 (Montana Supreme Court, 1891)
St. Bartholomew's Church v. Wood
61 Pa. 96 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1869)
Cromwell v. Bank of Pittsburg
6 F. Cas. 852 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1853)