Case ID: del_3/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN DICKINSON vs. PETER HORN.
    In a suit regularly before a justice of the peace judgment rendered on confession is valid.
    The case of Morrison vs. The Turnpike Co. (1 Harr. Rep. 366,) distinguishable from this.
    CeRtiorari to justice Leonard.
    Record — Horn vs. Dickinson. Action of debt on account; debt $9 28. Capias issued and defendant brought forward and confessed judgment for §9 28 debt, and 73 cents cost.
    The exceptions were — 1st. That there was not any cause of action before the justice to give him jurisdiction. 2d. That the judgment was rendered by confession of defendant without any specia cause of action within his jurisdiction, and without hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, as required by law.
    
      Mr. Wales contended on the authority of Morrison vs. The Turnpike Co. (3 Harr. Rep. 166,) that the justice was not authorized tc take this confession of judgment.
    
      Wales, for plaintiff.
    
      Gilpin, for defendant.
   But the court said that the cases were distinguishable. In the case cited, the parties went before the justice without process, and he m corded a judgment, by confession, without any previous process There was no case before the justice up on which he could give judg ment. It stood solely on the parties’ confession. But in the presen case the parties were regularly before him, and a cause stood foi hearing, upon which the justice was authorized to give judgment upon proof satisfactory to him, whether upon the defendant’s admis sion of the plaintiff’s claim, or on any other evidence.

Judgment affirmed.