Snowden v. Preston

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The docket entries show that the judgment in this case was entered 22nd July, 1878, and we all agree that the order of the Court directing the entry of the judgment to he changed, and the judgment to be entered as of January 9th, 1877, was an erroneous order, and must he reversed. The facts as they appear on the face of the records of the Court below are these: On the 9th of December, 1876, suit was brought by the appellant against the appellee; and on the 9th of January, 1877, a judgment by default for want of a plea was entered against the defendant. On the 22nd of July, 1878, the following agreement for confession of judgment, with the order of the Judge directing the judgment to he entered, was filed with the clerk of the Court: ²⁶⁵ “Samuel Snowden vs. John F. Preston In the Court of Common Pleas, January 9th, ISU. “Mr. Rasin, Clerk: — Enter a judgment hy confession in favor of the plaintiff in this case for the sum of one thousand and sixty-six dollars ($1,066) with interest and costs.

W: W. Busey, Atty. for Pltjf. Jno. F. Preston, Defendant. ’ ’ “Which said confession or agreement having heen submitted to the Court here for its determination of the premises, passed the following order to wit: “Let judgment he entered in accordance with the above agreement. Henry F. Carey. ” The docket entries show that the clerk on the 22nd of July, lS^, entered the judgment against the defendant in pursuance of the agreement and order of the Court, and on the same day a writ of attachment was issued on the judgment.

On the 10th of September, 1883, a credit of $350.30 as of 26th of February, 1880, was entered on the judgment hy order of the plaintiff’s attorney, and on the same day, a writ of fieri facias was issued which was afterwards returned “nulla bona.” On the 15th of June, 1890, an attachment was issued, and on the 25th day of the same month, a motion was made by the defendant to .quash the writ of attachment, for the reason, among others, that it had not heen issued within twelve years as required hy the Statute of Limitations. ²⁶⁶ It will be observed, however, as the judgment then stood upon the records of the Court, twelve 'years had npt elapsed from the day the judgment was entered, because it was according to the docket entry, entered on the 22nd of July, 1878, and the writ of attachment was issued on the 15th June, 1890. So on the 30th of June, 1890, the defendant filed a motion in writing, praying the Court to pass an order directing the clerk to correct the entry of judgment by confession as to its date, and make the record conform to the date of the agreement to confess judgment, and the order of the Court thereon. Upon this motion the Court below passed an order directing the entry of judgment made 22nd of July, 1878, to be corrected, and the judgment entered as of January 9th, 1877. The judgment, as thus corrected by the order of the Court, instead of being a judgment entered July 22nd, 1878, was a judgment of 9th January, 1877.

These are the