Wight v. Mott

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.

dissenting. As tbe law relating to confessions is, that a justice may take a confession for a debt not exceeding £20, wbicb confession tbe justice is directed to take; and there is no direction requiring tbe justice, in bis record, to specify on what account tbe debt originated; we therefore doubt, whether, if omitted, it is cause of error. At the same time, we think it is well *155enough, that the justice should mention in his judgment on what account it arose, as thereby it may be beneficial to prevent any future dispute.