
    Cook and another against Gilbert.
    ofthe *e , i806,anam¡^ay^Tentered by attor-
    at the a|age^ent to enter an ami w¡t|, a eoaJ ^ against there h¡an ac-the against C. & fóí(f01it^°0as sufficient stfftsnidnt of the cause of
    entered by tary, in pur- ” suance of an agreement that an amica» ble action shall be entered, and that the Prothonotary shall enter judgment against the defendants, in a certain sum, is valid; and it is not necessary that there should be a confession of judgment, in writing by the defendants, expressing the amount due to the plaintiff.
    A paper authorising the Prothonotary to enter judgment, need not be under seal.
    In Error.
    IN this case, an amicable action was entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland county, by agreement in writing signed by John Reed, attorney, tor Gtlbert, the plaintiff, and by David Cook Henry Barton, the defendants, in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, The agreement was headed with an account by the plaintiff against Messrs. Cook & Isott, amounting to seven hundred and twenty-eight dollars' forty-five cents, for goods as per bill rendered. The agreement was,' that an amicable action should be entered at August Term, 1819; and that the Prothonotary should enter judgment against the defendants for the sum of seven hundred and twenty-eight dollars forty-five cents damages, and costs of suit. The paper was directed to the Prothonotary, who entered judgment in the following manner: « By virtue of a warrant to me directed, contained in the agreement to enter this amicable action, I. John H. ” ' v Wise, Prothonotary of Westmoreland county, do confess judgment against the defendant, to the plaintiff, for the sum of seven hundred and twenty-eight dollars damages, and costs of suit, and stay of execution, according to the Act of Assembly.” J
    
    
      The errors assigned' in the record, which were argued by Coulter, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Craft and Forward, for the defendant in error, are stated in the opinion of the Court, delivered by
   Tilghman, C. J. —

Four errors have been assigned in this record:

l..“That an attorney, or agent, .has ho authority to enter an amicable action, under the Act of the 21st of March, 1806.* That is a question which it is unnecessary to consider. Independently of that Act, an amicable action may be entered by attorney. It has been a long and general practice.

2. '“'That the. cause of action is not stated in this agreement.” The cause of action is sufficiently stated in the account at the head of the agreement. It was an account for goods sold, &c. agaipst Cook Isott. This account, the defendants undertook to pay. They .assumed the debt, and agreed to give judgment against themselves for it.

3. “ There is no confession of judgment in writing by the defendants below, expressing the amount due to the plaintiff.” This exception must have been taken with a view to the Act of 1806, on which the case does not depend. The agreement was a sufficient authority to the Prothonotary to enter an appearance of the defendants in proper person, and a confession of judgment by them for the sum mentioned in the agreement.

4. “ The judgment is entered by the Prothonotary, by virtue of a warrant to him directed, when, in fact, there is no warrant to him or any other person. A warrant of attorney-must be under seal.” It is a mistake, to call this a warrant of attorney. It is no such thing. It is an order to the Prothonotary to enter a> judgment according to a very common practice in this State. The Prothonotary does not call it a warrant of attorney, but a warrant, that is, an authority to him, as Prothonotary. But if be had called it by a wrong iiáme, that would not have invalidated the judgment, provided there was authority for entering it. These agreements to enter amicable actions and confess judgments, need not be under seal. I. have seen a great many of them, and do not recollect one under seal. I make no doubt, that thousands of judgments have been entered in this way; and they must not now be questioned.

It is the opinion of the Court, that there is no error in ibis record; and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  