Wight v. Mott
This text of 1 Kirby 152 (Wight v. Mott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Tbougb tbe statute prescribes no form of a confession, or entry of a judgment tbereon, yet tbe reason and nature of tbe case require, that judgment upon a confession should express tbe particular debt or duty, about wbicb it is conversant, as a debt due by a certain note or bond, or to balance book accounts, etc. that tbe judgment may bar a future demand for tbe same thing. Here tbe judgment is not predicated upon, nor doth it appear to have relation to any particular debt or duty, and would not be a bar to any demand whatever; it is, therefore, deficient and erroneous.
As to tbe other matter alleged in error, that tbe justice took a confession for £27 and thereupon entered two judgments; tbougb such a proceeding would be erroneous, it does not appear to have been tbe case. The averment is contrary to tbe record, and therefore not admissible.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Kirby 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wight-v-mott-connsuperct-1786.