
    McKee et al. versus Sanford.
    The decision of the District Court of Allegheny county, on an application to open a judgment by confession, is not the subject of revision in this Court.
    Consent of parties cannot give this Court a jurisdiction which the law has • placed in the discretion of Courts of original jurisdiction.
    Error, to the District Court of Allegheny county.
    
    This was a scire facias guare executionem non upon a judgment, which was entered against defendants, March 6,1855, for $255.64. On the 28th June, 1855, the defendants obtained a “rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened, and the defendants let into a defence.” This rule was discharged by the Court on the 7th July, when a statement of facts was agreed to by the parties, and submitted to the Court, with a stipulation “ that either party should have the right to take a writ of error to the judgment of this Court.”
    The only question considered by this Court was, whether the judgment of the District Court on an application to open a judgment by confession is the subject of review here ?
    
      Marshall and Brown, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Gteyer, for defendant in error.
    The arguments of counsel were confined to the facts in the case stated.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Lewis, C. J.

The decision of the District Court on an application to open a judgment by confession, is not the subject of revision here. We have no authority to interfere in such cases, and the parties cannot give us, by consent, a jurisdiction which the law has not conferred. An agreement on the facts, with a provision for a writ of error, does not give us jurisdiction to review the decision of questions which the law places under the discretion of the courts of original jurisdiction.

Judgment affirmed.  