Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/387

 Cxncurr Coun', Pmjylvanla Difi:ri&. 38( would only be granted, upon the defendant's bringing the mo- 1797. ney into Court, or giving fecutity to pay the balance. vw`! But it was anfwcred by Rawls and Tbamar, that the amount due mult be afccrtaincd, before any ufe could be made of the agreement to enter judgment. It was the exprefs flipulation of the panics; and as the judgment has been improperly. entered at common law, it is on the fame {ide of the Court t at relief fhould be fought. The Courts in England and in Pmqglqaaia are in the eonflant pradice of {laying the roceedings on exe- ` cutions, which are iffucd either for more than is due, or before the day of payment. See 1 Ba¢.Abr. rg;. Br 1*1-ua Couwr. The agreement is to enter judgment jir what may be du:. The plaintitf has no right to decide the quef· tion. It is evident, from the terms of the agreement, that there was fomething to fettle; and the plaintiff, either by arbitration, . or by a jury, lhould have proceeded to make the fettlement, with notice to the defendant, before he entered the judgment; or, at leafl before he iil'ued the execution. The rule made abfolute. MA!WELL’S Lcilec oujiu Lrvr. JECTMENT. On a rule to lhew caufc, why this cje&- E ment, and many other cafes depending on the fame prin- cuple, lhould not be {iruck of the record, upon a fuggcllion that _ thc Court had no jurifdiétion, it appeared, that the leffor of the plaintiff was a citizen of Maryland, refident there, and that the `defendant was a citizen of Pemyylwnia, rclident here. But as foon as the ejeftmeut was inflituted, a bill for difcovcry was filed againlt the leilbr of the plaintii}, on the equity fide of the Court, in which it was allcdged, "that the conveyance of the prcmifes in controverfy to the leffor of the plaintiH·` was made by Morris, a citizen of Pcmfylwmia, for no other purpofe than to give jurifdiélion to the Circuit Court;" and the anfwer to the bill admitted; *• that the lcifor of the plaintiff had given no con-. fidcration for the conveyance; that his name had been ufed by way only of accommodation to Morri.r"; but it was not directly {aid, that it was for the purpofe of creating a jurifdiélion in the Federal Court. After argument by M. L:, for the plaintiff, and by WZ ` Tilglmmn, or the defendant, Ynanstt, jylire, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the conveyance to the leffor of the plaintiff was confidcred as entirely colorable and collulive; and, therefore, incapable of laying a foundation for the jurif- dr€tion of the Court. The rule made abfolutc. ' Anomuotrs

�