Case Name: Harbison versus Hawkins
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1874-03-02
Citations: 81 1/2 Pa. 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harbison versus Hawkins.
Judges: Before Agnew, C. J., Mercur and Gordon, JJ., Sharswood, J., at Nisi Prius.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 81 1/2
Pages: 142–144

Head Matter:
Harbison versus Hawkins.
1. “ Book-debts” in tbe 2d section of act of March 28tb, 1835 (affidavit of defence), must be such, as would be permitted to go to a jury in support of a claim.
2. Claims for services rendered as a notary public, although they may be entered in a book, are not “ book-debts ” within the meaning of the affidavit of defence law.
3. A notary public is not entitled to a per diem allowance for services; he is entitled to a fee for each specific service performed.
4. A copy of an account to the items of which there are no dates, not purporting therefore to have made up any specified time, does not present a claim on which judgment can be taken for want of an affidavit of defence.
5. HamtU v. O’Donnell, 2 Miles, 101; Wall v. Dovey, 10 P. F. Smith, 212, recognized.
January 15th, 1874.
Before Agnew, C. J., Mercur and Gordon, JJ., Sharswood, J., at Nisi Prius.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. Of January Term, 1872, No. 248.
This was an appeal from the judgment of Alderman J. P. Delany, in a suit in which Henry C. Hawkins was plaintiff', and William C. Harbison, defendant. The claim was for $5.32, to which the defendant claimed a set-off of $15. The alderman rendered.a judgment for the plaintiff' for $5.32. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas on the 13th of February. The'copy of plaintiff's claim was filed March 12th, 1871. It is as follows :
William C. Harbison, M.D.,
Dr. to Henry C. Hawkins, Notary Public. To half day labor, taking depositions, etc., . $4 82
One acknowledgment, „.....50
$5 32
Filed, March 12th, 1871.
On the 25th of March, 1871, judgment was taken for $5.30 for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
On 31st of March, 1871, a rule was entered to open the judgment, and let the defendant into a defence. April 22d, 1872, an affidavit of defence was filed, and same day the rule to open the judgment, etc., was discharged.
The defendant sued out a writ of error, and assigned for error the entering of judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, “ the copy filed not being within the requirements 'of the act of Assembly.”
R. P. White, for plaintiff in error.
The items of the claim are not the subject of a book entry.
The reporter received no paper-book of the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Mercur
delivered the opinion of the court, March 2d, 1874:
The whole claim of the plaintiff below is for services rendered as a notary public. It consists of two items. It is true the claim, as filed, purports to be a copy of book-entries, but the services are not the proper subject of book-account. Pie is entitled to a fee for each specific service' performed, and not to a per diem compensation. Ilis claim is for " a half day labor, taking depositions, etc.," and for " one acknowledgment." It is very clear these entries were not admissible in evidence, as. his book of original entries only. These being inadmissible as such, no affidavit of defence was required. The act of 14th April, 1846, section 1, Pur. Dig., 1165, pl. 5, gives to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia the same power to enter judgment for want of an affidavit of defence, as the District Court of said city previously had. The District Court derived its power from the act of 28th March, 1835, Pur. Dig., 495, pi. 13. The " book-debts" therein specified, must be such book-entries as would be admissible to go to a jury in support of the claim: Hamill v. O'Donnell, 2 Miles, 101; Wall v. Dovey et al., 10 P. F. Smith, 212. The account is further objectionable in that no date is given. As the entries do not purport to have been made at any specified time, it cannot be affirmed of them that they were made at or near the time they purport to have been.
The Coui't erred in entering judgment for want of an affidavit of defence, and the judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed, and a procedendo awarded