
    [*] WHILEY against BRADWAY.
    OS CERTIORARI.
    A judgment confessed is no bar to a suit for an omitted item.
    The action below was brought by Bradway against Whiley, to recover back a sum of money which Whiley had received on an order drawn by Bradway, in his favor, on a third person. The defence was, that the money was received on account of a demand which Whiley had against Brad-way, and in part payment thereof; and that Whiley had sued Bradway since the giving the order, and that Bradway had confessed a judgment for the balance, which had been recovered. But Bradway alleged in his pleading that on the adjustment of the accounts on which the balance had been confessed, the money received on this order had been overlooked, and not brought into the calculation, and this was put in issue, and the jury found a verdict for [726] the amount of this money, with interest, and judgment rendered thereon.
    It was now contended, on the part of Whiley, who brought this certiorari, that this transaction could not be unravelled in a new action; that Brad way’s confessing a judgment for the balance of Whiley’s demand, had precluded himself from recovering this money; that the judgment confessed was a bar to this demand, and settled all accounts between the parties.
    
      M’llvaine, for plaintiff.
   By the Court.

From the facts disclosed by this record we think Bradway had a good cause of action against Whiley for this money. It is true that by confessing the judgment Bradway had the burden of proof of his own mistake thrown upon him; and as the fact was fairly and distinctly put in issue, we are to presume that it was satisfactorily proved. We are, therefore, of opinion that the

Judgment be affirmed.  