Case Name: William Elliot, Lee and others, vs. James H. Woodhull
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1830-11
Citations: 12 N.J.L. 126
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Elliot, Lee and others, vs. James H. Woodhull.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 146–146

Head Matter:
William Elliot, Lee and others, vs. James H. Woodhull.
After a. capias has been regularly issued and served upon the defendant^ and a declaration filed by the plaintiff, a judgment may be entered by confession of the defendant without an affidavit of the plaintiff, that the debt is justly due, &c., as required by the act of 19th February, 1829.
E. Vanarsdale,
moved to enter judgment in this case upon a cognovit actionem of the defendant, and stated that a capias had been regularly issued in this case, and served upon the defendant, and a declaration filed by the plaintiff. He said he did not consider this case as coming within “ the supplement to the act entitled, ' An act directing the mode of entering judgments upon bonds with warrants of attorney to confess judgments,’ ” passed February 19th, 1829, and that the judgment might be entered without an affidavit of the plaintiff, stating that the debt “ was justly and honestly due, &c.,” as required by that supplement. But to put an end to all doubt upon the subject, he had thought it prudent to present the question to the court.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The case is not within the act of February 19th, 1829; therefore the Judgment may be entered without the affidavit therein mentioned.