
    Hall vs. Moorman.
    The Court will not lend a ready ear to an objection against the validity of a party’s own acts, on account of incapacity brought on by drinking.
    A judgment confessed on an insimul computassent is good, though the debt due was on specialties.
    The Defendant being indebted to the Plaintiff, and being also indebted to others, to a large amount, for which judgments were about to be obtained, consented to confess judgment to the Plaintiff for a portion of the debt due to him. The agent of the Plaintiff not being in possession of the evidences of the debt, stated an account, which was acknowledged by Defendant to be correct and just, and a confession was taken acccordingly. The confession was made at dark, oh the evening of the 13th March, and the next morning application was made to the Clerk, at the distance of twenty miles, to enter up judgment, which he declined doing,.having received notice not to do so. Application was then made to the Court of Comraon Pleas, for an order on the Clerk to enter up judgment, which was resisted on the ground that Defendant at the time of making the confession was noncompos,. and that a confession could mot be taken on an insimul computassent, when it appeared that the debt was on specialities.
    In support of the first ground several witnesses were sworn, who stated that in their opinion the Defendant was insane when he gave the confession. Several others were sworn on the part of Plaintiff, who stated that he was neither insane nor drunk, but of sound mind, and the Plaintiff insisted that this question should go to the Jury, which his honor refused. In the declaration, and filed with if, was a stated amount of the balance for which the parties agreed the confession should be taken.
    SxcHARnsoN, J. who heard themotion, refused the order.
    
      At the same Court, judgments were obtained against Defendant to the full amount of his property. The Plaintiff now brought the question before this Court.
    Preston, for the appeal.
    -, contra.
   Curia per

Nott, J.

The grounds on which leave to enter up the judgment in this case was refused, appear to be,

First: That ■ the Defendant was, from intemperance, incapable of doing business at the time the confession was taken.

Secondly: That the confession was obtained by fraud.

Thirdly : That the Plaintiff’s demand arose upon a bond, and the confession of judgment was on a declaration on an insimul computassent.

The first is a ground to which the Court will not lend a very ready ear. — If people will voluntarily incapacitate themselves from doing their ordinary business, they must take the consequences of their imprudence. They have no right to call upon this Court to protect them from all the consequences of intemperance and folly.

If, to be sure, one man takes the advantage of another when in a state of intoxication, to commit a fraud upon him, he will be entitled to relief from such fraud. But there is no direct charge of fraud in this case — and the affidavits to that point, as well as those to the intoxication, are so completely rebutted by the, counter affidavits, as at least to neutralize that charge. The question then resolves itself into the simple ground of the informality of the declaration.

But the irregularity does not appear to me to be of such a nature as to vitiate the proceedings. These parties may probably have had extensive dealings. I observe among the papers accompanying the declaration, a memorandum of a balance for which the judgment is confessed, arising from various accounts and transactions. And although the demand of the Defendant may have been on a bond, yet there may have been various payments and accounts, which, when they come to account together, left that balance which the Defendant, promised to pay, and for which he has confessed a judgment. — 2 Chit. 343; Foster vs. Allanson, 2 Term Rep. 479.

But certainly the Defendant had a right to waive the irregularity, if there was one, and he has done so by confessing judgment.

It is not pretended that the claim is unfounded, or that the Defendant has confessed a judgment for more than is actually due. But, beside:.-, this is not the way to try the grave questions which are now submitted to the Court. It does not appear at whose instance this application is made. If at the instance of the Defendant, signing the judgment does not deprive him of his remedy — If at the instance of the creditors, they have also a more ample remedy, if there is any fraud in the transaction.

The order of the Court below is therefore reversed, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to record the judgment as of the date of the confession.

Motion granted 
      
      
         See Laws on Pleading, 450, 488.
     