Case Name: Carlisle and another against Woods
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1821-09-11
Citations: 7 Serg. & Rawle 207
Docket Number: 
Parties: Carlisle and another against Woods.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 7
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Carlisle and another against Woods.
In Error.
Tuesday, September 11.
THIS was a writ of error to the Court of .Common Pleas of Allegheny countv. A replevin had issued from that Court, •5 »» •* * at the suit of Leonard T)obbin, against Walter Garlisle, di*ected to the defendant in error, William Woods, as Sheriff Allegheny county, . who took from Walter Carlisle and _ ° _ , . , . , , . James Robertson, the plaintiffs in error, a replevin bond m the penal sum oí 4000 dollars, with a warrant of Attorney, to enter judgment thereon. Judgment was afterwards enter-, ed generally in debt for 4000 dollars in favour of Woods, as Sheriff, against Carlisle and Robertson by confession, at the instance of an Attorney, who stated that he was such bv their , ' warrant constituted.
jU(^entap. pears tobe regularly ©n*> tered by warSiisCourt will not on error,inquire mti0 the vaiidi3bidfthe°nd> warrant sethoughn¡tís t^reeoTd?1 The party should apply to the Court below to open thejudgment»'
Hopkins, for the plaintiffs in error,
now assigned for error, that it was illegal in the Sheriff to. take a judgment bond from the defendant .in replevin, and also that the judgment, if authorised at all, should have been entered in the name of Woods, for the use of the plaintiffs in replevin, and not in his own name.
Baldwin, contra,
answered that the defendants had mistaken their remedy. The bond is not on the record : and the proper course for the defendants to pursue, was to apply to the Court below to open the judgment, if it was irregular.
Hopkins, then prayed the Court, if they inclined against him* to allow the writ of error to be nonprossed, as, if the judgment should be affirmed, it might injure their application to the Court below.
Forward, for the defendant in error,
objected to this course, and contended that affirming the judgment, could not prejudice the plaintiffs in error in their application to the Court below.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
On inspecting this record, the Court see nothing but an action of debt, in which a judgment was regularly confessed by an Attorney of the Court of Common Pleas. Nothing else appears on the record; for as to the copy of the bond, on which the judgment was entered, which has been annexed to the record without authority, this Court can take no notice of it. It seems, the defendant's counsel intended to have argued, that the bond was illegal and void. Bu* in order to come at their case, they should have applied to the Court of Common Pleas, in which the judgment was entered, and obtained their order to open the judgment, for the purpose of pleading to the declaration. As the record stands, every thing is right, and therefore the Court must affirm the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.