
    [Pittsburg,
    September 28, 1827.]
    The PHILADELPHIA BANK against CRAFT, Sheriff of Fayette County.
    in error’.
    A judgment by confession for a sum to be ascertained by tlie prothonotary, binds the real estate of the defendant only from the time of the liquidation of the sum by the prothonotary.
    Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county.
    The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below in this amicable action, to try whether the Philadelphia Bank was entitled, out of the money raised by the sale of the real estate of John Miller, to be paid the amount of an alleged judgment in favour of the bank, against. Miller, No. 23S, December Term, 1821, and the following case was stated, to be considered in nature of a special verdict.
    On the 10th of June, 1819, John Miller executed a writing, as follows, “ The Philadelphia Bank v. John Miller. Amicable action. In this case, I authorize and empower Parker Campbell to appear for me, and confess in favour of the plaintiff judgment against me: sum to be ascertained by the prothonotary, with stay of execution until the 10th day of June, 1820. Witness my hand and seal, the 10th day of June, 1819.
    
      John Miller. (Seal.)
    On which writing, is this indorsement, “By virtue of the within power of attorney, I do hereby appear for and confess judgment against John Miller according to the terms within stated, in favour of the Philadelphia Bank: sum to be ascertained by the prothonotary.. Witness my hand the 10th day of December, 1821.
    
      Parker Campbell.”
    Which writing and indorsement was, on the 10th day of December, 1821, filed in the office of the prothonotary of Fayette county, and entered of record of December Term, 1821, No. 238, in the following terms: “ The Philadelphia Bank v. John Miller. Amicable action,. filed and entered the 10th of December, 1821. In this case the defendant'authorizing and empowering Parker Campbell to appear for him, and confess judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Sum to be ascertained by the prothonotary, with stay of execution until the 10th of June, 1820, by virtue of which power of attorney Parker Campbell, esq. appears for the defendant, John Miller, on the 10th day of December, 1821, and confesses judgment against the said John Miller, according to the terms above stated, in favour of the Philadelphia Bank: sum to be ascertained as above. Acknowledged coram, John St. Clair, prothonotary.”
    
      On the 10th of December, 1822, the following entry is made on the docket in this case: “ Judgment liquidated one thousand and forty-seven dollars and forty-seven cents, at the time of judgment, December 10th, 1821.”
    After argument by Ross, for the plaintiff in error,
    who cited Helvete v. Rapp, 7 Serg. & Rawle, 306, and Lewis v. Smith, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 142.
    
      Baldwin, contra.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tod, J.

Secret incumbrances on real estate are not permitted by our law. Whether a confession of judgment for debt or damages uncertain in amount, without any statement of the cause of action, and without any declaration or document on the record, or in the office by which the amount can possibly be known, is from the time of such confession a lien upon land valid for whatever sum may be afterwards fixed, appears to me to be a question that can scarcely bear a doubt. It has not been contended that such an entry could be brought before a sheriff’s inquest to condemn real estate, or that an execution could issue, or action of debt be brought upon it; or that in case of death and deficiency of assets, it could be entitled to preference as a judgment. Indeed, there would be a difficulty, perhaps insuperable, of having even a writ of inquiry of damages upon such an entry. In equity, a decree to account gives no priority in the distribution of assets until the account is taken, and the sum ascertained. 2 Atk. 385. In Helvete v. Rapp, cited by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, judgment was for a precise sum. In all the other cases cited by the counsel, it will appear that judgment was for a certain sum, or the claim of the plaintiff, if not fixed by the statement of the cause of action, had been identified, or at least limited, by the amount of debt or damages laid in the declaration. For the fullest authority on this head, see Lewis v. Smith, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 142. A final judgment for money, without any sum, either directly or by reference, would appear no less a solecism than a judgment without naming the parties. To support such an entry as a lien upon land, could produce no advantage or convenience. It might be giving the means of unfair collusion to the parties. It would encourage the grossest negligence, and create many disputes. It would be almost turning this part of the law upside down, and making a judgment to be the beginning of a law suit, when it ought rather to be the end of one. The opinion of the court is, that here is a judgment of the Philadelphia Bank against John Miller, binding real estate from the ascertainment of the sum, viz: 10th of December, 1821, and not before. The judgment .of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  