
    Little v. Crittenden.
    where there is a confession of judgment under the statute (Hart. Dig., art. 770) on anote which is made a part ol' the petition, it is sufficient for the entry of judgment to read that “ tlie “defendant came into conn and confessed judgment, whereupon it is considered hy the “court,” &c., without staling more especially that the defendant confessed judgment for the particular amount. (Note 31.)
    Error from Red River. The defendant in error iiled his petition on the 5th day of May, 1S31. The court commenced its session on the 10th of the mouth, and on the 17th, the plaintiff having iiled an affidavit of the justness of the debt, as directed by the statute, (Dig., art. 770,) the plaintiff in error and another, his co-defendant below, appeared in open court and confessed judgment, which was thereupon entered with the benelit of a stay of execution.
    
      Young Sf Morgan, fur defendant in error.
   Wiieelek, J.

It is objected tiiat it does not appear that, in the confession of judgment, tho amount for which it was confessed was specified; and we are referred to our opinion in the ease of Montgomery v. Barrett. (8 Tex. It.) Tlie suit, in this case, was upon the irromissory note of the defendants, which is made a part of the petition. There is no pretense that there was or could he any misapprehension on the part of the defendants as to tlie effect of their confession of judgment, or the amount for which they thereby authorized the entry of judgment. Nor is there any pretense that it was entered for -a larger amount titan was actually due. And there is nothing in the opinion referred to which could authorize the supposition that a judgment, thus rendered, is not regular and legal.

Affirmed with damages.

Note 34. — Storey v. Nichols, 22 T., 87; Goss v. Pilgrim, 28 T., 207.  