
    Wynn v. Scott.
    January, 1836,
    Richmond.
    (Absent Tucker, P.)
    Comity Court — Monthly Term — Confession of Judgment Where Amount Exceeds Tweiity Dollars — Effect. — A county court has no jurisdiction at a • monthly term, in any suit at law where the value in controversy exceeds $20: and therefore, a confession of judgment for a debt of larger amount, entered at a monthly term oí a county court, is of no effect whatever.
    In the county court of Dinwiddie, at July term 1828, being a monthly term of the court, the following entry was made on the minutes: “Wynn v. Richard Bolling, John Davis and John Scott. Judgment confessed by defendants in person, for 2000 dollars; to be discharged by the payment of 1000 dollars, with interest from the 1st June 1828 until paid, and costs of suit. And it is agreed, that this judgment is to have the force and effect of a judgment on a forthcoming or delivery bond, 'x'but execution to be stayed by consent of parties until the 1st of December 1828.” The circuit court of Dinwiddie, having, upon the petition of Scott, allowed him a supersedeas to this proceeding and judgment, reversed the same; and from this judgment of reversal, Wynn appealed to this court.
    Spooner, for the appellant,
    suggested, that the county court had jurisdiction to receive the confession of judgment, though not to try an action and thereupon render judgment, at a monthly term. But he did not put the cause on that point. He said, that this judgment entered upon the confession of the defendants, ought to be regarded as right, unless the contrary appeared by the record; and that if there was any case, in which the court could rightly have received a confession of judgment at a monthly term, this ought to be regarded as such a case. Now, there were many cases, in which the county courts had jurisdiction to render judgment at a monthly term; for instance, they might, at a monthly as well as at a quarterly term, hear and determine summary motions, and give judgments, for principals against sureties; or they might give judgments on forthcoming bonds. And the appellate court ought to presume, that this was a confession of judgment in such a cascas was within the jurisdiction of the court, since nothing appeared to the contrary.
    Robinson, contra,
    said, that where the objection to a judgment was the want of competent jurisdiction in the court to render it, the jurisdiction of the court ought to appear, affirmatively and distinctly, by the record. Thornton v. Smith, 1 Wash. 81; Winder v. Eddy, Id. 87, note in second edition. The confession of the judgment could not help the case, for consent could not give jurisdiction. To shew that the jurisdiction of the county courts in actions at common law, was confined to the quarterly terms, and could nowise be exercised at the ^monthly terms, he referred to the county court law, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 71, | 8, 12, pp. 247, 8. That this was not a judgment confessed upon any of those motions which the county courts might entertain at a monthly term, was plain from the entry; for if it had been such a case, the entry would have stated, that the proceeding was upon a motion. If, for example, this had been a judgment confessed upon a motion on a forthcoming bond, it would have been stated, that it was on such a motion (so was the form, invariably, in such cases) ; and the agreement, that the judgment should have the effect of a judgment on a. forthcoming bond, would have been omitted, since it would have been wholly nugatory. The form of the entry shewed, that it was a judgment confessed on p bond for debt. He cited Wilkinson v. Mayo, 3 Hen. & Munf. 565.
    
      
      County Courts — flonthly Term — Jurisdiction.—It is well settled, botli by statute law and the decisions, that at a monthly term of the county court, no judgment against a debtor upon an action at law for the recovery of money can be had, but such judgment can only lie had at the auarterly term of such court. Withers v. Fuller, 30 Gratt. 552. citing Code 1873, ch. 154, §§ 3 and 12; Wynn v. Scott,, 7 Leigh, 63; Claflin v. Steenbock, 18 Gratt. 842. See monographic note on “Courts.”
    
   CARR, J.

It is admitted, that the confession of judgment in this case, was taken at a monthly term. It is apparent from the entry, that the case does not come within the proviso of the 12th section of the county court law, enlarging the jurisdiction of the monthly terms. It is equally clear, that by the 8th section of that statute, power is expressly given to the quarterly courts, “for the trial of all presentments, criminal prosecutions, suits at common law and in chancery, where the sum or value of the subject in controversy exceeds twenty dollars” &c. Erom these premises it follows, of necessity, that the county court at the monthly term, when this judgment was confessed, bad no jurisdiction of the matter, unless the confession itself would give it. But it has been decided, again and again, that though a confession of judgment releases errors, it cannot give jurisdiction. This question of the respective jurisdictions of the quarterly and monthly courts, was much discussed in the case of Wilkinson v. Mayo; and the court there decided, that the county and corporation courts, at their quarterly * terms, may, in their discretion, transact any business embraced by the general jurisdiction of those courts, as wills, mills, &c. but that at a monthly term, they cannot take jurisdiction of any subject expressly and exclusively assigned to a quarterly term. The judgment of the circuit court, reversing that of the county court, should be affirmed.

The other judges concurred. Judgment affirmed.  