General
Shoemaker v. Shirtliffe
1 U.S. 1331 Dall. 133·Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas·1785·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Shoemaker v. Shirtliffe.
Practice.
Execution eannot issue on a judgment entered on bond, by a warrant of attorney, until the time of payment, although there is no provision in the warrant for a stay of execution.
The defendant had executed a bond, with warrant of attorney to confess judgment -to the plaintiff. The bond was payable on the 1st of September 1785 ; but there was no provision for a stay of execution, until that time, inserted in the warrant of attorney. The plaintiff issued a ft. fa., before the 1st of September, and Dallas, for the defendant, moved to set it aside.
[MAJORITY — The Court]
The Court
were of opinion, that the warrant of attorney reciting the bond, was only an instrument subservient to it; and, consequently, ■ that the execution could not be issued, until the time given for payment was expired.
The execution set aside.
See Hopkins v. Deaves, 2 Bro. 97; Sparks v. Garrigues, 1 Binn, 152.