« ZurückWeiter »
La. An. 743
Co. 7. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14; not evidence for him against the maker. Hale v. Finch, 104 U. S. 261; Flanders Fenn v. Dugdale, 31 Mo. 580; Brooki'. Seelye, 105 U. S. 718; McIntosh v. lyn etc. R. Co. v. Republic Bank, 102 U. Jarvis, 8 Up. Can. Q. B. 535: But see School Directors v. Hernandez, 31 La. A judgment against the plaintiff in An. 138; Louisiana Levee Co. v. State, an action for trespass is not evidence 31 La. An. 250; Folger v. Palmer, 35 against him in an action against another
joint trespasser. Sprague v. Oakes, 19 A judgment does not bind an ori- Pick. (Mass.) 455. ginal party to the suit who has been A judgment in favor of one creditor, permitted to withdraw. Owens v. Al- declaring a conveyance by the debtor exander, 78 N. Car. 1. Compare Am. void, is not evidence in favor of another Bell Telephone Co. v. National Tel. creditor. Winston v. Starke, 12 Gratt. Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 663.
(Va.) 317 A judgment against a surviving part- A decree of dismissal in divorce an estoppel
the suit is not evidence against third perrepresentative of a deceased partner. sons of the facts found therein. NeedBuckingham v. Ludlum, 37 N. J. Eq. ham v. Brenner, 12 Jur., N. S. 434; 14 137
W. R. 694. See also Burlen v. ShanA purchaser at a tax sale is not non, 3 Grav (Mass.) 387. bound by a decree in a suit against the A judgment against the defendant in county treasurer to enjoin the issue of a criminal case is evidence for the the tax deed. Helphrey v. Redick, 21 State in a civil action for the same Web. So.
offence. Webbs v. State, 4 Coldw. A judgment against an officer for (Tenn.) 199. wrongfully attaching goods is not con- Seemingly against the general princlusive against a purchaser at the of- ciple it has been held that where a deficer's sale. McKay v. Kilburn, 42 fendant defended an action and was Mich. 614. See also Hunt v. Haven, 52 compelled to pay to the plaintiff money N. H. 162.
belonging to another, the judgment was The officer who served a summons, a defence to an action by the true not having been a party to proceedings owner. Mayer v. Foulkrod, 4 Wash. setting it aside, is not bound by them, (U. S.) 349. Compare Schrauth v. Dry but may attack their regularity and Dock etc. Bank, 86 N. Y. 390. validity in an action against him for a And a finding by the jury that a perfalse return. Mabbett v. Vick, 53 Wis. son was not an endorser but the origi15S.
nal promisor of a note, was held A sheriff having possession of prop. binding on all other parties to the erty under a writ of attachment is not note. Sturtevant v. Randall, 53 Me. bound by the judgment in a replevin 149. suit to which he was not a party, and in It has been held that a town sued for which he was not served with process, injuries from an obstruction in a highand did not appear, and which he did way might set up by way of estoppel a not defend, although his under sheriff, judgment in favor of the defendant in a as an individual, was a party to the suit. former action brought by the same Geekie v. Kirby Carpenter Co., 106 U. plaintiff to recover for the same in
juries against a person alleged to have A judgment for plaintiff in an action caused the obstruction. Hill v. Bain, of replevin against a police officer for 15 R. I. 75; s. C., 2 Am. St. Rep. 873. property. taken on a search warrant is A judgment in favor of an infant son not a bar to an action for conversion of suing by a guardian ad litem for inthe same property brought by the al- juries was held sufficient proof that the leged owner against the plaintiff in the injuries were caused by defendant's former action. Scott v. Drennen, 9 negligence in a subsequent action by Daly (N. Y.) 226.
the father against the same defendant. It has been held that a servant or Anderson v. Third Av. R., 9 Daly agent sued separately for infringing a (N. Y.) 487. But a judgment in favor patent is not bound by a former judg- of the wife of the plaintiff in a former ment against the master or principal action for the same injury complained upon the question of the validity of the of was held not to be admissible in patent. Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 24 Fed. favor of the husband. Neeson v. Troy, Rep. 806.
29 Hun (N. Y.) 173. See also Groth A judgment against an endorser is v. Washburn, 39 Hun (N. Y.) 324.
judgment because he conducted the suit;1 nor is a witness bound by a judgment in an action in which he testifies. 2 But in the absence of fraud and collusion, a judgment is conclusive evidence, even against a stranger, of the relation of debtor and creditor between the parties thereto,3 and of the amount of the indebtedness. 4 As a muniment of title, also, a judgment may be conclusive evidence against a third person. Ordinarily, a judgment against a deceased party is erroneous but not void.6
1. Breedlove v. Turner, 9 Mart. (La.) on or admissible in evidence against 353; Thrasher v. Haines, 2 N. H. 443. strangers to such proceeding. , McDon
2. Blackwood V. Brown, 32 Mich. ald v. Matney, 82 Mo. 358. 104; Wright v. Andrews, 130 Mass. 6. “A distinction has been made be149; Yorks v. Steele, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) tween cases where the only fact to be 397; Schrauth v. Dry Dock etc. Bank, established is the right of a creditor 86 N. Y. 390; Parker v. Moore, 59 N. H. against the judgment debtor himself 454. Nor is he estopped to deny what and cases where such a right may incihe admitted as a witness. Wilkinson v. dentally affect third persons, as where Thigpen, 71 Ga. 497. Compare Fol- a person is affected by a chain of title ger v. Palmer, 35 La. An. 743. Unless under a judgment sale and conveyance. in a proper case the admission has In this case it is held that third persons been acted upon.
Leinkauff v. Mun cannot impeach the judgment." Big. ter, 76 Ala. 194.
on Estop. (4th ed.) 142; Taylor 7'. An indemnitor who acts as a witness Phelps, i H. & G. (Md.) 492; Barney may be estopped by the judgment. v. Patterson, 6 H. & J. (Md.) 182; BayBarney 7”. Dewey, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) lor v. Dejarnette, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 172. 224
See also Inman v. Mead, 97 Mass. 310; 3. "Supposing such third persons Casler v. Shipman, 35 N. Y. 533; were not bound with or for the parties Secrist v. Green, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 744. found liable," the rule applies. Big. See also infra, this title, JUDGMENTS on Estop. (4th ed.) 142. See Pickett v. EVIDENCE. Compare Pratt z'. Pipkin, 64 Ala. 520; Fuller v. Foote, 56 Jones, 64 Tex. 694. Conn. 341; Way v. Lewis, 115 Mass. 6. Deceased Persons.—See generally 26; Cutter v. Evans, 115 Mass. 27; DEATH, vol. 5, p. 130, et seq.; Powell v. Brigham v. Fayerweather, 140 Mass. Washington, 15 Ala. 803; Elliott z'. 411; Wingate v. Haywood, 40 N. H. Paterson, 65 Cal. 109; Phelan v. Tyler, 437; Raymond 7. Richmond, 78 N. Y. 12 Pac. C. L. J. (Cal.) 38; Collins r'. 351; Pray v. Hegeman, 9S N. Y. 351; Mitchell, 5 Fla. 364; Stoetzell v. FulCurtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9; Hall v. lerton, 44 III. 108; Spalding v. Wathen, Stryker, 27 N. Y. 596; Swihart v'. 7. Bush (Ky., 659; Case v. Ribelin, I J. Spaum, 24 Ohio St. 432; Cincinnati 2. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 30; Hayes v. Shaw, 20 Dickmeier, 31 Ohio St. 242.
Minn. 405; Reid v. Holines, 127 Mass. According to some authorities, the 326; West v. Jordan, 62 Me. 484; Colejudgment is prima facie evidence in man v. McAnulty, 16 Mo. 173; Websuch
Atkins V. Hosley, 3 ber v. Stanton, i Mich. N. P. 97; JenThomp. & C. (N. Y.) 325; Garland 2. nings v. Simpson, 12 Neb. 558; Swasey Rives, 4 Rand. (Va.) 282; s. C., 15 Am. v. Antram, 24 Ohio St. 87; Yaple ö. Dec. 756.
Titus, 41 Pa. St. 1957 Day 7. Ham4. Candee v. Lord, 2 Comst. (N. Y.) burgh, i Browne (Pa.) 75; Carr v. 269; s. C., 51 Am. Dec. 294; Voorhees Townsend, 63 Pa. St. 202; Collins 7. 7'. Seymour, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 569; Knight, 3 Tenn. Ch. 183; Taylor z'. Sidensparker v. Sidensparker, 52 Me. Snow. 47 Tex. 462; s, C., 26 Am. Rep. 481; Hills v. Sherwood, 48 Cal. 386; 311; Fleming v. Seeligson, 57 Tex. 524; Chamberlain v. Carlisle, 26 N. 11. 540. Milan County v. Robertson, 47 Tex. See also infra, this title, JUDGMENTS 222; McClelland v. Moore, 48 Tex. 355; AS EVIDENCE.
Holt v. Thacher, 52 Vt. 592; Neale v. Partnership.-A judgment in a suit Utz, 75 Va. 480. Compare McCreery determining the existence or nonexist. '. Everding, 44 Cal. 286; Edwards v. ence of a copartnership relation be- Whited, 29 La. An. 647; McCloskey v. tween the parties thereto is not binding Wingfield, 29 La. An. 141; Parker v.
(6) PERSONS UNDER DISABILITIES—(1) Infants.-A judgment rendered against an infant on confession or default, or on an appearance by an attorney, or without the appointment of a guardian ad litem, is erroneous but not void, and except where the infant is given a day on coming of age to show cause why the judgment should not conclude his rights, he is bound by it
Horne, 38 Miss. 215; Tarleton v. Cox, 415; Shaefer v. Gates, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 45 Miss. 430; Young v. Pickens, 45 453; S. C., 38 Am. Dec. 164. See also Miss. 553; Burke v. Stokely, 65 N. Car. Rutter v. Puckhover, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 569; Colson v. Wade, 1 Murph. (Tenn.) 638; Richards v. Richards, 10 Bush +3; Carter v. Carriger, 3 Yerg: (Tenn.) (Ky:) 617. See INFANTS, vol. 10, p. 411; S. c., 24 Am. Dec. 585; Morrison 690; GUARDIAN AND WARD, vol. 9, p. 3. Deaderick, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 342. 158. See subtitle NUNC PRO TINC ENTRIES. Since judgments against infants are
Extinct Corporation. — Judgment not void, they must be attacked by against an extinct corporation has been some direct proceeding when erroneheld void. Clay Township v. District Preston v. Dunn, 25 Ala. 507; of Buchanan, 63 Iowa 188; Sturges v'. Allman v. Taylor, 101 Ill. 185; cases Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384; McCulloch cited above in this note. v. Norwood, 58 N. Y. 362; Thornton An infant can dispute an absolute 1'. Marginal Railway, 123 Mass. 32. decree against him only upon the same Compare Muscatine Turn Verein V. grounds as an adult might dispute it, Funck, 18 Iowa 469; Hunt v. Colum- such fraud, collusion bian Ins. Co., 55 Me. 290; City Ins. Co. Joyce v. McAvoy, 31 Cal. 273; s. c., 89 1. Commercial Bank, 68 III. 348; Platt Am. Dec. 172; Ralston v. Lahee, 8 v. Archer, 9 Blatchf. (C. S.) 559. See Iowa 17; s. C., 74 Am. Dec. 291; Loyd also May v. State Bank, 2 Rob. (Va.) v. Malone, 23 111. 43; s. C., 74 Am. Dec. 56; s. C., 40 Am. Dec. 726. Such a 179; Kuchenbeiser 2". Beckert, 41 Ill. judgment is at least erroneous. Mer- 172; McLemore '. Chicago etc. R. Co., rill 7'. Suffolk Bank, 31 Me. 57; Rankin 58 Miss. 514; English v. Savage, 5 7. Sherwood, 33 Me. 509.
Oreg. 518. See INFANTS, vol. 10, A judgment against a party in an action commenced after his death is Judgment against an iníant for costs void. Loring v'. Folger, 7 Gray (Mass.) in action brought by him by his next 505; Neale r'. Utz, 75 Va. 480.
friend is binding upon him. Albee v. 1. Emeric v. Avarado, 64 Cal. 531; Winterink, 55 Iowa 184. Smith v. McDonald, 42 Cal. 484; An absolute judgment or decree Joyce v. McAvoy, 31 Cal. 273; Brown against an infant, in a court having ?'. Lawson, 51 Cal. 615; Ralston v'. jurisdiction of the subject matter and Lahee, 8 Iowa 17; Cuyler v. Wayne, the person of the infant, is so binding 64 Ga. 78; Sharp v. Findley, 71 Ga. that he cannot disturb the rights ac654; Chalfant v. Monroe, 3 Dana (Ky.) quired under it by bona fide purchasers 35; Pond v. Doueghy, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) without notice. Joyce v. McAvoy, 31 538; Beeler v. Bulliit, 3 A. K. Marsh. Cal. 273; s. C., 89 Am. Dec. 172; Gron(Kr.) 280; s. C., 13 Am. Dec. 161; fier v. Puymirol, 19 Cal. 629; Allman Townsend v. Cox, 45 Mo. 401; Mc- 7. Taylor, 101 Ill. 185; Gwinn v. WillLemore v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 58 Miss. iams, 30 Ind. 374; Porter v'. Robinson, 514; Marshall v. Fisher, i Jones L. 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 254; s. C., 13 Am. (N. Car.) 111; Grantham v. Kennedy, Dec. 153; England 2. Garner, 90 N. 91 N. Car. 148; Larkins v. Bullard, 88 Car. 197; Sheldon 2. Newton, 3 Ohio N. Car. 35; Mills v. Dennis, 3 Johns. St. 494; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. (U. Ch. (N. Y.) 367; Bloom v. Burdick, i S.) 350; Bennett v. Hamill, 2 Scho. & Hill (N. Y.) 131; Wright v. Miller, i Lef. 575. Compare McLemore v. ChiSandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 103; English v. cago etc. R. Co., 58 Miss. 514. See Savage, 5 Oreg. 518; Montgomery v. also Weidersum v. Naumann, 62 How. Carlton, 56 Tex. 361; Wills v. Spraggin, Pr. (N. Y.) 369; s. C., 10 Abb. N. C. 3 Gratt. (Va.) 567; Barber v. Graves, 149.
Compare Whitney vi Failure to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. Porter, 23 445; Bigelow on Estop. But while not void, judgment against (4th ed.) 102; Dailey v. Reid, 74 Ala. an infant is erroneous unless a guar
18 Vt. 292.
as fully as an adult. The record of the judgment must show, however, that the infant was made a party to the action in a legal manner.2
dian has been appointed. Dailey V. the infant time upon attaining majority Reid, 74 Ala. 415; Chalfant v. Monroe, to have it set aside, it becomes binding, 3 Dana (Ky.) 35; Ewing v. Ferguson, if the infant does not avail himself of 33 Gratt. (Va.) 548; and case cited the opportunity. Waring v. Reynolds, above. See also INFANTS, vol. 10, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 59; Porter v. Robinp. 691. And judgment should not be son, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 253; s. C., 13 rendered on the answer of a guardian Am. Dec. 153; Moss v. Hall, 79 Ky. ad litem without full proof. Ralston v. 40; Ralston v. Lahee, 8 Iowa 17; s. C., Lahee, 8 Iowa 17; s. C., 74 Am. Dec. 74 Am. Dec. 291; Kuchenbeiser ?'. 291; Ingersoll 7. Ingersoll, 42 Miss. Beckert, 41 Ill. 172; Seward v. Clark, 155; Johnson 7'. McCabe, 42 Miss. 255; 67 Ind. 289; Powell v. Gott, 13 Mo. McIlroy v. Alsop, 45 Miss. 365; Mills 458; s. c., 53 Am. Dec. 153; McLemore v. Dennis, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 367: Wright 7'. Chicago etc. R. Co, 58 Miss. 514; v. Miller, i Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 103; McAnear v. Epperson, 54 Tex. 220; Walton v. Coulson, i McLean (U. S.) S. C., 38 Am. Rep. 625; Kemp v.Cook,
Compare English v. Savage, 5 18 Md. 130; s. c., 79 Am. Dec. 681. Oreg. 518. See also Hanna v. Spott's Compare Tiernan v. Hammond 41 Heirs, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 362; s. c., 43 Md. 548. Am. Dec. 132.
A judgment for an infant defendant If the general guardian of an infant is binding on an adult plaintiff. Kendall is served with summons and appears v. Titus, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 727. and defends for the infant, the appoint- 2. Coleman v. Coleman. 3 Dana ment of a guardian ad litem is unnec- (Ky.) 398; s. C., 28 Am. Dec. 86; Shaefer essary. Smith v. McDonald. 42 Cal. v. Gates, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 453; s. C., 38 434; Colt v. Colt, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) Am. Dec. 164; Pond v. Doueghy, 18 B. 399.
Mon. (Ky.) 558; Hunter v. Hatton, 4 i. The right of an infant to pray Gill (Md.) 115; s. C., 45 Am. Dec. 117. that the “parol demur" has been abol- Service of Writ on Infant.-By the ished. Joyce r'. McAvoy, 31 Cal. 273; weight of authority, a judgment against s. c., 89 Am. Dec. 172; Harris 7. You- a minor, affecting real property in the man, Hoff. Ch. (N. Y.) 182; English v. State, which shows his appearance and Savage, 5 Oreg. 518.
the appointment of a guardian ad litem, It is usual to give the infant a day who appeared and defended the suit, but after he comes of age to show cause does not show personal service of citawhy the judgment should not bind him, tion upon the minor, is voidable and where the effect of the judgment is to ot void. Preston v. Du divest him of an estate in land, or 507; Gronfier v. Puymirol, 19 Cal. 629; where a conveyance is required of him. Sheldon v. Newton, 3 Ohio St. 494; Lockwood v. Stradley, 1 Del. Ch. 298; Robb v. Irwin, 15 Ohio 689; Taylor v. S. C., 12 Am. Dec. 97; Ralston v. Lahee, Rowland, 26 Tex. 293; Taylor v. Whit8 Iowa 17; s. c., 74 Am. Dec. 291; field, 33 Tex. 181; Nelson 2. Moon, 3 Hanna v. Spott's Heirs, 5 B. Mon. McLean (U. S.) 319. See also Cocks (Ky.) 362; s. C., 43 Am. Dec. 132; v. Simmons, 57 Miss. 183; Simmons v. Waring's Heirs v. Reynolds, 3 B. Mon. McKay, 5 Bush (Ky.) 25; Larkins v. (Ky.) 59; Richards v. Richards, 10 Bullard, 88 N. Car. 35; Bernecker v. Bush (Ky.) 617; Powell v. Gott, 13 Miller, 44 Mo. 102. See INFANTS, Mo. 458; Townsend v. Cox, 45 Mo. vol. 10, p. 691. 401; McLemore v. Chicago etc. R. Co., Against Person in Penitentiary.58 Miss. 514; Mills v. Dennis, 3 Johns. Where, pending a civil action against Ch. (N. Y.) 367; Harris v. Youman, a defendant, and prior to the trial Hoff. Ch. (N. Y.) 178; Wright v. thereof, he was imprisoned in the peniMiller, i Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 103; S, C., tentiary under a sentence and convic8 N. Y. 9; S. C., 59 Am. Dec. 438; tion for a term less than his natural Brick's Estate, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 12. life, and while thus imprisoned, withCompare Joyce v. McAvoy, 31. Cal. out the appointment of a trustee to 273; s. C., 89 Am. Dec. 172; Walsh v. manage his estate or defend the action, Walsh, 116 Mass. 377.
a judgment was obtained against him, Where the judgment or decree gives it was held that the judgment was a
(2) Married Women.-In the absence of a statute authorizing it, personal judgment should not be rendered against a married woman;' but, by the weight of authority, a personal judgment against a married woman is not absolutely void, although the action was founded upon a contract which she was incompetent to make.2 Personal judgment may be rendered against a married woman in any case where she is authorized to sue and be sued
419; Elson 7.
nullity, and might be revoked or set 75 N. Y. 103; Alexander 7. Bouton, 55 aside upon proper proceedings had be. Cal. 15. sore the court rendering the same. 2. The judgment is simply erroneous Com. of Rice County v. Blackman, 29 and must be corrected in a direct proKan. 158.
ceeding. Gambette v. Brock, 41 Cal. 1. Against Separate Estate of Mar- 78; Washburn v. Gouge, 61 Ga. 512; ried Women.—The proper manner to Glover v. Moore, 60 Ga. 189; Thomas enforce a contract which a married wo- v. Lowry, 60 Ill. 512; Guthrie v. Howman might make is by a proceeding in ard, 32 lowa 54; Wolf v. Van Metre, equity to charge her separate estate. 23 Iowa 397; Tinsley v. Feeley, 62 Ind. Winston v. McAlpine, 65 Ala. 377; 85; Burk 2". Hill, 55 Ind. Wolff v. Van Metre, 19° Iowa 134; O'Dowd, 40 Ind. 300; McDaniel z'. Reed v. King, 23 Iowa 500; Patton 7. Carver, 40 Ind. 250; Spalding v. Stewart, 19 Ind. 233; Kirby v. Childs, Wathen, 7 Bush (Ky.) 659; Grantham 10 kan. 639; Corrigan v. Bell, 73 Mo. v. Kennedy, 91 N. Čar. 148; Green v. 53; Burgwald v. Weppert, 49 Mo. 60. Branton, i Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) 500; See also Kirk v. Fort Wayne Gas Light Patterson v. Fraser, 5 La. An. 586; Co., 13 Ind. 56; Lynch v. Elkes, 21 Tex. Vantilburg ?'. Black, 3 Mont. 459; 229.
Sheppard v. Kendle, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) The record of a judgment against a 81; Chatterton v. Young, 2 Tenn. Ch. married woman, under enabling stat- 768; Howell 7'. Hale, 5 Lea (Tenn.) utes which allow her to charge her sepa. 405; Keith v. Keith, 26 Kan. 26; Vick rate estate, should show that the debt v. Pope, 81 N. Car. 22; Howard v. for which the judgment was rendered North, 5 Tex. 290; s. C., 51 Am. Dec. was one for which her separate estate 769; Baxter z'. Dear, 24 Tex. 17; Phelps was liable. McGlaughlin v. O'Rourke, v. Brackett, 24 Tex. 236; Hartman v. 12 lowa 459; White v. Baillio, 12 La. Ogborn, 54 Pa. St. 120; Dillon v. CunAn. 663; Robson v. Shelton, 14 La. An. ningham, 8 L. R., Ex. Cas. 23; Moses 723; Cary v. Dixon, 51 Miss. 593; Ma- v. Richardson, 8 B. & C. 421. Com gruder vi Buck, 56 Miss. 314; Lewis 7' pare Bowman z'. Kaufman, 30 La. An., Perkins, 36 N. J. L. 133; Swayne . pt. 2, 1021; Magruder v. Buck, 56 Miss. Lyon, 67 Pa. St. 436; Hecker v. Haak, 314; Mallett v. Parkham, 52 Miss. 921; 88 Pa. St. 238; Covington v'. Burleson, 28 Griffin v. Ragan, 52 Miss. 78; Cary v. Tex. 638; Menard v. Lydnor, 29 Tex. Dixon, 51 Miss. 593; Davis v. Foy, 15 257; Allver v. Johnson, i Flipp. (U.S.) Miss. 64; Griffith v. Clarke, 18 Md. 457; 346. But see Robinson v. Stadeker, 59 Higgins 7. Peltzer, 49 Mo. 152; Asbury
v. Odell, 83 Mo. 264; Weil v. Simmons, Personal Judgment.-Judgment on a 66 Mo. 617; Wilson v. Garaghty, 70 contract which a married woman has Mo. 517; Corrigan v. Bell, 73 Mo. 53; no power to make will be reversed. Morse v. Toppan, 3 Gray (Mass.) 411; Doyle v. Kelly, 75 III. 574; Ferguson v. Swayne v. Lyon, 67 Pa. St. 439; Hecker Reed, 45 Ill. 574.
v. Haak, 88 Pa. St. 238; Faithorne v. A personal judgment for the defi- Blaguire, 6 M. & S. 73. See also ciency on a mortgage of her separate Freison v. Bates College, 128 Mass. estate cannot be rendered against a 464. married woman, unless the mortgage It has been held that a judgment enwas for a debt upon which she would tered by confession by an attorney unbe liable to personal judgment under der a bond and warrant of attorney, some special statute. Jones v. Merritt, which she was incompetent to give, was 23 Hun (N. Y.) 184; Rogers v. Weil, void. Dorrance v. Scott, 3 Whart. 12 Wis. 664; Platner v. Patchin, 19 (Pa.) 309; Caldwell 2". Walters, 18 Pa. Wis. 333. See also Cashman v. Henry, St. 79; s. C., 55 Am. Dec. 592; Graham