TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Warwick v. Matlack

Warwick against Matlack

Warwick v. Matlack, 7 N.J.L. 165 (1824)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1824
Judges
Eossell, Ford, Kirkpatrick
Citations
7 N.J.L. 165
Headnotes
On a bond conditioned for the payment of a certain sum of money in three years, with interest annually, a judgment may be entered for the whole penalty of the bond on the default of payment of the first year’s interest..
Summary
A judgment on a bond and warrant of attorney had been entered as of the-'term of May last, in the usual form, under the “act directing the mode of entering judgments upon bonds with warrants of attorney to confess judgments," (Rev. Latos 685) by William Warwick against Abraham Matlack. The bond upon which the judgment had been entered was dated the 22d of January, 1821, and conditioned for the payment of $1,400, in three years from the date thereof, with interest annually. The affidavit, which was made by the plaintiff at the time of confessing the judgment, in pursuance of the directions of the fifth section of the act, stated, that the true consideration of the bond was for lands sold, and that the debt was jusrly due and owing. The warrant of attorney authorized the confession of the judgment for the amount of the penalty of the bond, and was drawn in the usual form. The judgment was entered for the penalty of bond. * Wall, upon the behalf of Mahlon Lewis, (who, he said, was a purchaser without notice of the judgment of certain lands upon which it operates as a lien,) now moved to set this judgment aside, because it had been entered before' the debt became duo. The bond bearing date on the 22d January, 1822, and having three years to run, and the judgment being entered on the 15th of May, 1822, was long before the day of payment mentioned in the condition of the bond, and therefore erroneous. The words of the first section of the statute were, “ that it should be lawful for the obligee, at any time after the day of payment mentioned in said bond or obligation, to apply to a justice of Supreme-Court,” &c. And the fifth section of the statute required that the plaintiff should produce, at the time of confessing such judgment, to the court or judge before whom such judgment should be confessed, an affidavit, stating that the debt for which judgment is confessed, is justly due and1 owing. Whatever might have been the practice at common law, he apprehended that under this act of the legislature a judgment could not be entered until after the day of payment mentioned in the bond.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Kirkpatrick

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Kirkpatrick, O. J.

The proceedings are substantially .according to the true spirit and intention of the act. The law intended that a man should have his legal remedy upon "this statute, in the same way and to the same extent as if he had proceeded by summons or by a regular suit.

Ford, J.

By the principles of the common law, the whole penalty is due upon the non-payment of the interest, and for the amount of the penalty the judgment was always entered; .and, in order to be relieved, the debtor was obliged to resort to chancery; but now the practice was, to endorse upon the execution the sum or instalment actually due, and the levy was made for that amount only.

Eossell, J. concurred.

Motion to set aside the judgment refused. * Sec, upon this subject. 2 Arch. JPrac. 18; Ilardw. 270; 16 East. 163; 1 M. & S. 706. In debt on bond for the performance of covenant, &c„ where breaches are suggested, &c., under the statute, (Mev. Laws 306-7) although the writ of execution must be for the entire penalty, damages and costs, yet it should be endorsed to levy only the •damages assessed upon the breaches, the costs found by the jury, the costs of increase, and the costs of execution. 1 Arch. lJrac. 267.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list