SAWIN, ADMINISTRATOR,
v.
KENNY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An Arkansas court rendered judgment against one defendant in a multi-defendant contract action where all defendants were jointly bound, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that state procedural rules permitting judgment against any one or more of several defendants prevented the sacrifice of substantive rights to mere procedural formalities where the defendant against whom judgment was entered had acknowledged his liability and the only remaining question was the amount owed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
We think the court below decided correctly. By the Code of Practice of Arkansas, which was in force when this judgment was rendered, it was provided, that, “Where two or more persons are jointly bound by contract, the action thereon may be brought against all or any of them, at the plaintiff’s option ” (sect. 4480, Gantt’s Dig., 1874) ; that “judgment may be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of several defendants ” (sect. 4701) ; and that, “ though all the defendants haye been summoned, judgment may be rendered against any of them severally, where the plaintiff would be entitled to judgment against such defendants if the action had been against them alone ” (sect. 4704).
This, under the act of June 1, 1872 (17 Stat. 187, sect. 5; Rev. Stat. 914), furnished a rule of practice for the courts of the United States in that State. Clearly, in this case, if the action had been brought against Sawin alone, judgment could have been entered against' him on this verdict. He, in his answer, acknowledged his liability upon the contract, which is the foundation of the action, and offered to confess judgment for $2,500. After that, as between him and the plaintiffs, the only question was one of amount. Substantial justice has, therefore, been done between these parties; and, by the operation of these remedial provisions of' the code, the sacrifice of substance to mere form and mode of proceeding has been prevented.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Slocum v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 228 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1913)…e now required by the act of Congress, of June 1, 1872, c. 255, § 5, 17 Stat. 197, reenacted in § 914 of the Revised Statutes, to cpnform, as near as may be, to those existing in the courts of the State within which the trial is had. Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U. S. 289; Ex parte Boyd, 105 U. S. 647; Chateaugay Co., Petitioner, 128 U. S. 544; Glenn v. Sumner, 132 U. S. 152, 156.” (Id., pp. 39-40.) In other words, a practice which would not have been allowed in the absence of statute was permitted under the statute…
-
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1922)
-
United States v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1940)…ribe; and any balance that may be found due by any tribe or tribes shall be paid by the Treasurer of the United States' 'out of any funds of such tribe or tribes upon the filing of the decree of the court with him.” • ' • R. S. 914; Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U. S. 289; United Mine Workers v. Coronado Co., 259 U. S. 344, 382. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Sherman Machine & Iron Works, 62 Okla. 29. Board of County Commissioners v. United States, 308 U. S. 343, and Deitrick v. Greaney, ante, p. 190.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence