Case ID: johns_3/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gale against Chase.
    ALBANY,
    Feb. 1808.
    
      Where the defendant mdorsed on a war-request'to^en^ ter up judg» ment against him, for what-might have unthe^atisfaction of the justice, and the next day desired the enter the judg* ment, as he had ed, that the Pla™tiff dethan was due heM,™hatsuch a consent or revocable,W£md that the justice should have had a trial, to ascertain the amount due, and not have entered up judg. ment on the demand of the plaintiff.
    IN error on certioraru The plaintiff in error, having r ■ . ° beeti taken by a warrant, issued against him at the suit of the defendant in error: On the 2d of June, 1807, he indorsed, on the back of the warrant, a written request to ... . , . , . „ . the justice, to enter up judgment against him, tor whatever demand the plaintiff should have against him, to the satisfaction of the justice. On the 8th day of June, he called on the justice, and informed him, that he had given such a writing to the constable who served the warrant: . but that since he gave the confession to the officer, he had discovered that the plaintiff claimed a greater sum than was due, and desired the justice not to enter judgment, until he could see the plaintiff and settle with him, which, if he could not do, he must have a trial, for he did not suppose that he owed the plaintiff more than 10 dollars. On the same day, the plaintiff appeared, and stated his demand to be 25 dollars, for a barrel of potash. Nothing was done by the justice until the 10th day of July, when the plaintiff below called on the justice, and informed him, that the defendant had not settled the demand, and requested judgment on the confession given by the defendant. The justice, thereupon, entered up judgment, nunc pro tunc, on the confession, for 25 dollars, and the costs.
    
      H. Bleecker, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Mumford, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The authority to the justice to enter up the judgment, must be considered as a parol authority, and revocable by the defendant. What he stated to the justice, amounted to a revocation,"and a trial ought to have been had, to ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff, The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.