
    William Elliot, Lee and others, vs. James H. Woodhull.
    After a. capias has been regularly issued and served upon the defendant^ and a declaration filed by the plaintiff, a judgment may be entered by confession of the defendant without an affidavit of the plaintiff, that the debt is justly due, &c., as required by the act of 19th February, 1829.
    
      E. Vanarsdale,
    
    moved to enter judgment in this case upon a cognovit actionem of the defendant, and stated that a capias had been regularly issued in this case, and served upon the defendant, and a declaration filed by the plaintiff. He said he did not consider this case as coming within “ the supplement to the act entitled, ' An act directing the mode of entering judgments upon bonds with warrants of attorney to confess judgments,’ ” passed February 19th, 1829, and that the judgment might be entered without an affidavit of the plaintiff, stating that the debt “ was justly and honestly due, &c.,” as required by that supplement. But to put an end to all doubt upon the subject, he had thought it prudent to present the question to the court.
   By the Court.

The case is not within the act of February 19th, 1829; therefore the Judgment may be entered without the affidavit therein mentioned.  