Case ID: va_17/html/0662-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE) ROANE", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dunbar v. Linbenberger.
    Thursday, March 19th, 1812.
    Confession of Judgment — Action Sounding in Damages. —A confession of judgment, for no certain sum, in an action sounding in damages, is not sufficient to authorize the Court to assess the damages, and. enter judgment ior a certain sum; hut a writ of inquiry should he executed.
    In this case the action was indebitatis assumpsit, for non-payment of an inland bill of exchange, against Dunbar, the acceptor. The bill was described in the declaration, as drawn the 21st of October, 1807, for 374 dollars and 56 cents, payable nine months after date. A writ of inquiry ■of damages being awarded, the defendant ■* ‘acknowledged the plaintiff’s action,” in general terms; but did not confess judgment for'any particular sum. “It was ■therefore considered by the Court,” (without having the writ of inquiry executed,) “that the plaintiffs recover against the defendant the sum of 374 dollars and 56 cents, with interest thereon, to be computed after the rate of six per centum per annum, from the 21st day of July, 1808, till paid, and their costs,” &c. from which judgment the defendant appealed to this Court.
    *Stanard, for the appellant.
    William Hay, jun’r, for the appel-lee, was absent.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Judgments by Confession” appended to Richardson v. Jones, 12 Gratt. 53.
    
   Thursday, March 26th,

JUDGE) ROANE

pronounced the opinion of the Court, that, although the appellant acknowledged the action of the appellees, generally, yet he not having confessed a judgment for anv particular sum, it was incompetent for the Court to supply that defect, and assess the damages. The judgment was therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, that the writ of inquiry might be executed.