Case Name: Kimmel and another against Kimmel
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1819-09-09
Citations: 5 Serg. & Rawle 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kimmel and another against Kimmel.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 5
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
Kimmel and another against Kimmel.
Thursday, September 9.
Where an attorney appears specially for one defendant in a suit against two, and afterwards as attorney for the defendant, acknowledges judgment in favour of the plaintiff, it is a good judgment only as to the defendant for whom such attorney appeared, and a joint execution is erroneous.
In Error.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset county.
Abraham Kimmel, brought an action of debt by summons against George Kimmel, and John Kimmel, in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset county. An appearance was entered on the docket, opposite the defendants* names, in the following manner: « S. Riddle, Riddle, jun. for John Kimmel.” The writ was returned served, and it was further entered on the docket, that “ S. Riddle appears, prays oyer and special imparlance.” Pleas were afterwards entered, and issue joined, and the cause put on the trial list. Upon this list, there was the following entry made by the president of the Court: “ 28th May, 1812, Mr. J. M. Riddle, for defendant, acknowledges judgment for g 421 88 cents, debt, g 206 damages.” The plaintiff issued execution against both the defendants.
Alexander, for the plaintiffs in error,
contended that the execution against both, was erroneous, the judgment being only against one. 1 Binn. 219.
Forward, contra,
cited 6 Johns. 34. 296.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Here the judgment was confessed by Mr. J. Riddle, who had specially appeared for but one of the de fendants; and as the acknowledgment does not expressly appear to have been meant for both, we cannot intend that the attorney considered he was acting under any other authority than that by which he originally appeared. Although the acknowledgment is made in behalf of the " defendant," in the singular number, which in strictness, is applicable only to one ; yet if the attorney who confessed the judgment had appeared for both, there might perhaps be a difference: but here it is plain, Mr. Riddle considered himself throughout as the attorney of only John Kimmel, and as the execution is against both defendants, while the judgment is against but one, it must be set aside.
Execution set aside.