Case Name: Gorman against Richardson
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1820-09
Citations: 6 Serg. & Rawle 163
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gorman against Richardson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 6
Pages: 163–165

Head Matter:
Gorman against Richardson.
September.
A, entered into a bond in a certain sunt to B, to be ^me -adthinthe termof nership, viz., tenyears tween thescñd and the smd B, & C,” and in the same instrument, he gave a warrant of attorney, to confess judgment on the bond, but the judgment -was not to be entered on the record, “ except upon the dissolution of the partnership, or upon the death of the obligor.”
Held, that on the dissolution of the partnership referred to in the bond, the obligee was entitled to enter judgment and issue execution,
In Error.
ERROR to Allegheny county.
John Gorman, the plaintiff in error, who was defendant below, on 31st January, 1810, bound himself by bond, to Nathaniel Richardson, the plaintiff, in the- sum of twelve , i- ’ r hundred dollars, to be paid “ at some time within the term of partnership, viz., ten years from the date of the of partnership between the said John Gorman, the said Nathaniel Richardson, and Thomas Baird," with legal interest from the date of the said bond. In the same instrument, the defendant gave a warrant of attorney to confess judgment on the bond, but judgment was not to-be entered on record, iC except upon the dissolution of the .partnership, or upon the death of the obligor.” On the 30th July, 1816, judgment was confessed by Samuel Douglas, .Esq., attorney for the defendant, it being expressed in the confession, that the partnership of Gorman, Baird Richardson, was dissolved. On the 16th November, 1816, this judgment°was opened by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, and on the •17th January, 1818, judgment was again entered by leave of the Court, anda fieri facias issued-to April Term, 1818, The alleged error in issuing the execution, was the foundation of the present writ of error.
Baldwin, for the plaintiff in error,
.admitted the .judgment to have been regularly entered, so far as to be a lien on -the defendant’s lands, but insisted, that it should have been entered with a stay of execution for ten years from'the date of the articles ; the true construction of the bond, which was matter of law, being, that no execution was to issue within that time. He cited Shoemaker v. Shirtliffe.
■ Wilkins, for the defendant in error,
said, that the proper construction of the bond and warrant taken together was, that the money was payable on the dissolution of the partnership, or the death of the obligor, and as the second judgment, whose regularity was not denied, was entered on motion, and-by leave of the Court, on proof being made that the partnership was dissolved, it followed, that the fieri facias was properly issued.
But the construction of this instrument, he insisted, was a question not now open. The hond was not on record; the execution pursued the record, on whioh nothing appeared with respect to a stay of execution, and this Court must condne itself to the record.
In reply-.to the last argument of the counsel for the defendant in error, Baldwin, observed, that the bond had been brought into the Court below, and had been sent up and certified as ;part of the record. The warrant .of attorney-was incorporated in .the bond, and this Court having these instruments properly before them, would enquire whether the execution issued in pursuance of them.
1 Dall. 133.

Opinion:
Tilghman C. J.,.
delivered the Court's opinion'.
The plaintiff in error contends, that although the judgment may have been properly entered, yet the execution was erroneous, because the agreement of the parties was, that the money should not be paid until the- end of ten years from the dáte of the bond. On the contrary, it is said by the defendant in error: first, that this point is not open to argument in this Court, being a matter out of the record ; and second, that supposing it to be open, the execution was properly issued, because the true construction of the bond is, that the money should be payable' whenever the partnership was dissolved. Whether this Court could enquire into the propriety of issuing the execution, if upon view of the bond and warrant of attorney, it had appeared to be improperly issued, it is unnecessary to decide. It must be more satisfactory to the parties to have their cause decided on its' merits, that is, on their own 'agreement, than on any other principle; and on a fair construction of the bond and warrant, the cause appears to us to be clearly with, the plaintiff. The money was payable, not at the end of ten years, but within the term of partnership, viz., ten .years, that is to say, within ten years from the date of the bond. If nothing more had been said, it would have been difficult to understand, at what time within the ten years, it was intended that the money should be paid* or whether it would not have been at the election .of the obligor, to pay at what time he pleased, within ten' years, or not "until the expiration of ten years. But taking into consideration the warrant of attorney, which is part of the same instrument, the matter is plain enough. The judgment is not to be entered, except on a dissolution of the partnership. Immediately on its dissolution, then, the judgment might be entered, and there is ho expression, or even intimation, that execution may not be issued immediately after entry of the judgment. So that upon the- whole of the instrument* the meaning is sufficiently clear, that the obligor was to pay the money as soon as the partnership was dissolved.^It is therefore the opinion of the Court, that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.