Sawin v. Kenny

93 U.S. 289, 23 L. Ed. 926, 3 Otto 289, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1384
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 18, 1876
Docket14
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 93 U.S. 289 (Sawin v. Kenny) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U.S. 289, 23 L. Ed. 926, 3 Otto 289, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1384 (1876).

Opinion

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 *291 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Deemer v. United Fruit Co.
17 F. Supp. 146 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1936)
Watts v. Phillips-Jones Corp.
211 A.D. 523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
McKeon v. Central Stamping Co.
264 F. 385 (Third Circuit, 1920)
Ellicott Machine Corp. v. Vogt Bros. Mfg. Co.
267 F. 945 (Sixth Circuit, 1920)
Columbia Digger Co. v. Rector
215 F. 618 (W.D. Washington, 1914)
Slocum v. New York Life Insurance
228 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court, 1913)
Knight v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
180 F. 368 (Sixth Circuit, 1910)
Smith v. Jones
181 F. 819 (Third Circuit, 1910)
United States v. Agee
108 F. 10 (Fifth Circuit, 1901)
United States v. Bullard
103 F. 256 (S.D. Alabama, 1900)
St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. Hayes
97 F. 859 (Fifth Circuit, 1899)
Hughey v. Sullivan
80 F. 72 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1897)
Chils v. Gronlund
41 F. 505 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1890)
Albany & Rensselaer Co. v. Lundberg
121 U.S. 451 (Supreme Court, 1887)
Hanley v. Donoghue
116 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1885)
Bond v. Dustin
112 U.S. 604 (Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 U.S. 289, 23 L. Ed. 926, 3 Otto 289, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sawin-v-kenny-scotus-1876.