
    Helvete against Rapp.
    
      September'.
    
    In ERROR.
    An entry by the prothonotary on his docket of a suit, and that a judgment of ing'the Sar" ticuiarsof'it of entrylfa good entry of a judgment under Ihe Act mallos;
    ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County,
    On a scire facias post annum et diem, in the Court below, the suit of Frederick Rapp against Francis Helvete, to rev*ve a judgment, William Wilkins, a judgment creditor of Francis Helvete, appeared, and pleaded nultiel record: the plaintiff replied, habetur tale recordum; and rule to bring in the record. The record when produced was as follows, 4
    
      Frederick Rappq Francis Helvete.
    
    Penalty - $ 5450 00
    Real debt - ■ 2725 38
    
      Plaintiff files of record a judgment bond, under the hand and.seal of defendant for the sum of 5450 dollars, conditioned for the payment 2725 dollars, 38 cents, on or before November 5th next, dated 5th day of this inst,, and entered the 17th May, 1815.
    Judgment thereupon was rendered on the scire facias, in favour of the plaintiff.
    
      Baldwin and Wilkins, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended, that under the Act of the 24i.h February, 1806, this was not a good entry of a judgment on a bond and warrant. The mere filing of a bond is not an execution of the warrant of attorney. The word judgment is technical, and cannot be supplied by simply filing the bond. 'Judgment can only be rendered by the Court: filing the bond constitutes no lien. The Prothonotary, under the Act, must do what the attorney otherwise would do, namely, enter a judgment. The act effects no change but to take away the attorney’s fee.
    
      Campbell contra,
    relied on the object'of the Legislature, which was to dispense with form, and obtain the substance of the entry, namely notice to creditors and purchasers, and on the constant practice. He cited 2 Binn. 43, Rob. on Frauds, 431.2. 10 Johns. 467. Sir. 585. 2 Id. Ray, 1350. 4 Bac. Ab. 648. 3 Johns, 586.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Duncan J.

The evident and sole intention of the Legislature in conferring the power of entering a judgment on the judgment bond without the intervention of an attorney was, to exempt the obligor from the payment of costs to an attorney. This Act was passed on 24th February, 1806. It provided that the Prothonotary of any Court of record, on the application of the original holder, or his assignee of a note, bond, or other instrument on which judgment is confessed, or containing a wariant for any attorney, to confess a judgment, shall enter judgment against the person or persons who executed the same, for the amount which from the face of the instrument appears to be due, without the agency of any attorney, or declaration filed, particularly entering cSn his docket, the date and time of the writing, which shall have the same force and effect, as if a declaration had been filed, and judgment had been confessed by an attorney, or given in open Court in term time.

The Court decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff below, and gave judgment that he had such record as he had made profert of. No set form of words is prescribed, in which the Prothonotary shall enter judgment, as it is to be desired there had been, both for the sake of uniformity and precision. There being no literal form directed, and no precedent to guide the Prothonotaries in the exercise of this new duty, each has adopted his own mode; they are as various as their faces, and many of them scarcely present a feature to inform a purchaser or designate a judgment; but here is a substantial entry of a judgment bond, containing all that is necessary to give information. It is entered on the docket in the form of an action, as a judgment bond, the names of the parties, the amount due, the date and time of the writing. It states the entry of a judgment bond, and seal of the defendant; the judgment bond is filed of record, entered the 17th May, 1815. What is entered ? a judgment on the judgment bond filed. No man could be deceived by this mode of entry, for however inartificial it may be, however defective in the technical words of a judgment, none who called for information could'be led into error; the docket entry gave full information. It might have been more formal, but still it is the entry of a judgment entered by the Prothonotary, who was authorised to make the entry. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed,  