Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1964, No. DSB 216, in case of Walter E. Heller & Company v. Lombard Corporation.
Gerald S. Lesher, with him Herbert B. Sachs, and Baskin, Boreman, Sachs & Craig, for appellant.
W. Walter Braham, Jr., with him Kirkpatrick, Pomeroy, Lockhart & Johnson, for appellee.
Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Eagen.
This is an appeal from an order below refusing to strike or open a judgment, entered by virtue of a confession and warrant of attorney included in a judgment note.
The note and a chattel mortgage on a Douglas DC-3 aircraft were executed and delivered by the appellant, Lombard Corporation (Lombard), to the appellee, Walter E. Heller & Company (Heller), to secure payment of a debt arising out of a refinancing agreement entered into between the parties on November 17, 1962.*fn1 Lombard defaulted and made no payments on the indebtedness. Heller instituted replevin proceedings and gained possession of the aircraft. Later it confessed judgment on the note. Subsequently, the aircraft was sold to Heller, the highest bidder, at a duly advertised
public sale of which Lombard was served with prior notice, for the sum of $25,000.
Appellant contends that the judgment was void in toto and should have been stricken, because it included therein an item wholly unauthorized by the warrant of attorney and was also entered for an excessive amount. It is unquestionably correct that a warrant of attorney authorizing confession of judgment must be strictly construed, and a judgment entered thereon should be stricken in toto if any item unauthorized by the warrant appears on the face of the judgment, or if the judgment is entered for a grossly excessive amount: Flomar Corp. v. Logue, 418 Pa. 181, 210 A.2d 254 (1965); Roche v. Rankin, 406 Pa. 92, 176 A.2d 668 (1962); and, Housing Mtg. Corp. v. Tower Development and Investment Corp., 402 Pa. 388, 167 A.2d 146 (1961). However, we are not persuaded that the instant facts come within the operation of the rule.
The judgment was entered for a total amount of $60,207.54, or $58,500, the face amount of the note, plus calculated interest in the sum of $1707.54. Appellant contends that the $1707.54 item was not interest, but, in fact, charges for storage, repairs and transportation of the replevied aircraft. Confession of judgment for such charges was not authorized in the warrant.
Assuming arguendo, that the item involved was indeed charges for storage and repairs, it was listed on the face of the judgment as interest, and interest was clearly within the scope of the warrant. Moreover, within the terms of the warrant, interest in the sum of $3120 could properly have been confessed against the appellant. Hence, the judgment did not include on the ...