Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Sawin v. Kenny

Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U.S. 289 (Supreme Court of the United States 1876)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1876-12-18
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sawin v. Kenny. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
28 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Conformity to State Practice Under the Act of June 1, 1872, state practice and pleading rules furnish the rule of practice for federal courts sitting in that state where the state rules are in force at the time judgment is rendered.
  2. Civil Procedure — Joint Liability and Severance of Judgment Where two or more persons are jointly bound by contract, the action may be brought against all or any of them at the plaintiff's option; and though all defendants have been summoned, judgment may be rendered severally against any of them where the plaintiff would be entitled to judgment against such defendants if the action had been brought against them alone.
  3. Civil Procedure — Rendering Judgment Against Individual Defendants Under a state code of practice permitting judgment for or against one or more of several defendants, a verdict against a single defendant is sufficient to support a judgment against that defendant, and the court will not disturb such a judgment merely because the verdict was rendered in a joint action.
  4. Civil Procedure — Substance Over Form Remedial provisions permitting severance of judgments prevent the sacrifice of substance to mere form and mode of proceeding, and substantial justice between the parties is furthered where a defendant has acknowledged his liability and the remaining question is only one of amount.
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.