Mandeville v. Holey & Suckley, 26 U.S. 136 (1828)

U.S. Supreme Court

Mandeville v. Holey & Suckley, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 136 136 (1828)

Mandeville v. Holey & Suckley

26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 136

Syllabus

Under the law of Virginia, confession of judgment by the defendant, is a release of errors.

An action was instituted in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia by the defendants in error against Richard Slade, James Anderson, and the plaintiff in error, trading under the firm of Richard Slade & Co., and the suit having abated as to Slade by his death and by return as to Anderson, it was prosecuted against Joseph Mandeville only.

The declaration contained the usual money counts, and the damages were laid at $10,500.

By consent of parties, an order was made by the court referring the accounts to the auditor of the court to state and report them to the court, this report to be subject to exceptions, and when the report should be settled, then the same to be substituted for a trial by jury and a judgment to be entered for the whole sum which should be finally ascertained by the court to be due.

The auditor reported a balance of �24,03l. 2s. 6d., of which �18,60l. 6s. 7d. was principal, to be due to the plaintiff below, which, with the exchange, amounted to $11,695.20, deducting the interest included in the balance reported by the auditor; the principal of the debt found to be due was less than the damages laid in the declaration.

No exceptions having been filed, Mandeville, the plaintiff in error, at a term subsequent to the report, came in and confessed a judgment for the sum reported, with interest from 7 December, 1824.

Page 26 U. S. 137

U.S. Supreme Court

Mandeville v. Holey & Suckley, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 136 136 (1828)

Mandeville v. Holey & Suckley

26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 136

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

FOR THE COUNTY OF ALEXANDRIA

Syllabus

Under the law of Virginia, confession of judgment by the defendant, is a release of errors.

An action was instituted in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia by the defendants in error against Richard Slade, James Anderson, and the plaintiff in error, trading under the firm of Richard Slade & Co., and the suit having abated as to Slade by his death and by return as to Anderson, it was prosecuted against Joseph Mandeville only.

The declaration contained the usual money counts, and the damages were laid at $10,500.

By consent of parties, an order was made by the court referring the accounts to the auditor of the court to state and report them to the court, this report to be subject to exceptions, and when the report should be settled, then the same to be substituted for a trial by jury and a judgment to be entered for the whole sum which should be finally ascertained by the court to be due.

The auditor reported a balance of �24,03l. 2s. 6d., of which �18,60l. 6s. 7d. was principal, to be due to the plaintiff below, which, with the exchange, amounted to $11,695.20, deducting the interest included in the balance reported by the auditor; the principal of the debt found to be due was less than the damages laid in the declaration.

No exceptions having been filed, Mandeville, the plaintiff in error, at a term subsequent to the report, came in and confessed a judgment for the sum reported, with interest from 7 December, 1824.

Page 26 U. S. 137

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court is satisfied in this case that under the law of Virginia, a confession of judgment by the plaintiff in error in the original suit is a release of errors.

Judgment affirmed, with costs and damages at the rate of six percentum per annum.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.