Iglehart v. Chicago Marine & Fire Insurance

Citations

• 35 Ill. 514

Syllabus

<p>1. Judgments by confession — Practice when rendered in open court Where & judgment is confessed in open court, the presumptions are in favor of the regularity of all the proceedings. It is necessary that proof should have been made of the execution of the warrant of attorney before the judgment is confessed, but where the confession is in open court, the evidence of that fact need not be presented in the record, but it will be presumed to have been done unless it appears to have been omitted.</p> <p>2. Same—consolidation of several notes in one judgment. It is competent upon a confession of judgment in open court to include several notes in one judgment. A court of general jurisdiction has power to consolidate different actions of the same nature between the same parties. It is not material that an order should be made authorizing such an entry of judgment.</p> <p>3. Same — defects in declaration cured by the confession. Where the declaration is so defective that it would have been held bad on demurrer, it is cured by the confession of the judgment. The confession of a judgment under the 21th section of the practice act operates as a release of all errors in entering up the judgment or malting a record thereof.</p> <p>4. Same—record need not show that the person confessing judgment is an attorney-at-law. It is not necessary, in the confession of judgment upon warrant of attorney, authorizing the confession to be made by an attorney-at-law, that the record should show that the person who confessed the judgment was an attorney-at-law. Attorneys being officers of the courts, it must be presumed that the court knows its own officers.</p>