Case Name: Nicholas P. Iglehart v. William L. Church
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1864-04
Citations: 35 Ill. 255
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nicholas P. Iglehart v. William L. Church.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
Nicholas P. Iglehart v. William L. Church.
1. Judgments by confession—Proof of execution o warrant of attorney. Where a judgment is confessed in open court by warrant of attorney, and it is recited in the judgment that the execution of the warrant of attorney was proved, the finding of that fact will be deemed as binding and conclusive as any other within its jurisdiction; and such a judgment is not erroneous, although no affidavit appears in the record, proving the execution of the warrant of attorney under which it was confessed.
Writ or Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George jVIamierre, Judge, presiding.
On the 15th day of March, 1859, William L. Church appeared in the court below and filed his declaration against Nicholas P. Iglehart, in assumpsit, for the recovery of certain indebtedness. At the same time there was filed, the note as described in the declaration, warrant of attorney and cognovit, on which a judgment was entered in his favor for $597.35, damages and costs.
It was recited in the judgment that the execution of the warrant of attorney was duly proved.
The defendant sued out this writ of error, and now makes the point that no affidavit was filed to prove the execution of the note or the power of attorney, and for that reason the judgment is erroneous.
Messrs. Arrington & Dent, for the plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Soammon, MoOagg & Fuller, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Walker
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The judgment in this case was confessed in open court, and the record shows that the court found that the power of attorney was proved. This was a fact that the court had jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine, and having found the fact, it is as binding and conclusive as any other within its jurisdiction. FTo error is perceived in this record and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.