
    Felger, to use, Appellant, v. Jersey Cereal Food Co. et al.
    
      Judgments — Joint judgments — Confession—Powers of attorney —Maher of note — Payee of note^ — Assignment of note.
    
    1. A joint judgment cannot be confessed on two separate warrants of attorney, tbe first of wbicb authorizes tbe entry of judgment against tbe maker of a note, and tbe second against tbe payee, who bad assigned tbe note and guaranteed payment to bis assignee.
    Argued March 14, 1928.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
    Appeal, No. 32, March T., 1928, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Westmoreland Co., Aug. T., 1922, No. 1,296, making absolute rule to strike off judgment, in case of John G. Felger, to use of Citizens National Bank of Irwin v. Jersey Cereal Food Company, E. O. Snyder, President; Samuel Konle, Treasurer, and John G. Felger.
    Affirmed.
    Rule to strike off judgment. Before Copeland, P. J.
    
      April 9, 1928:
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rule absolute. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was order, quoting record.
    
      Carroll Caruthers, with him Scott Fink, for appellant.
    
      John E. Kunkle and Rabe F. Marsh, for appellee, were not heard.
   Per Curiam,

A joint judgment was confessed on two 'Separate warrants of attorney, the first of which authorized the entry of judgment against the maker of a certain note and the second a judgment against the payee, who had assigned the note and guaranteed payment to Ms assignee. On application of the executors of the last mentioned defendant, (who died after executing the guaranty and assignment indorsed on the note), the court below struck off the judginent as to him, saying, inter alia, “We are of the opinión that the [holder] of the note cannot enter a joint judgment against the maker and the endorser on the two separate confessions, because the promises of the maker and the guarantor are separate and distinct and do not constitute them jointly liable for the same debt.”

The above conclusion is sustained by Union Bank of Nanty-Glo v. Schnabel, 291 Pa. 228; see also Romberger v. Romberger, 290 Pa. 454.

The order appealed from is affirmed.  