Case ID: ind_53/html/0202-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Biddle, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rose v. Grinstead.
    
      Practice.—Offer to Confess Judgment.—Before the trial of a pending action, the defendant offered in writing “ to confess judgment for” a certain sum, “ with costs accrued to the present time ” in said cause; and the plaintiff declined to accept said offer, and on the trial there was a finding for the plaintiff for a smaller sum.
    
      Held, that said offer was sufficient, and that the judgment was properly rendered for the amount of the finding with costs accrued up to and including the day on which said offer was made.
    From the Jennings Circuit Court.
    
      J. D. New and T. 0. Bachelor, for appellant.
    
      D. Overmyer and -J. Bundy, for appellee.
   Biddle, J.

Complaint by appellant against the appellee for breaking the appellant’s close and cutting down and carrying away his timber therefrom. Answer :

1. Denial

2. Settlement and payment before suit.

3. License.

Demurrer to second and third paragraphs of answer for want of alleged facts; demurrer overruled; exceptions taken; trial by the court; finding for appellant for fourteen dollars and ninety cents. Before trial, appellee had offered in writing to allow judgment to be taken against him in the following words:

‘ The defendant, J asper H. Grinstead, offers to confess judgment for thirty dollars, with costs accrued to the present time in the above entitled case. February 28th, 1874.

“ Jasper H. Grinstead.”

This offer the appellant declined to accept. The court rendered judgment in favor of appellant upon the finding, and for costs accrued up to and including the day upon which the offer to confess judgment was made. To this the appellant excepted, and insists that the offer to confess judgment is insufficient. We think differently. It is good. Holland v. Pugh, 16 Ind. 21; Harris v. Dailey, 16 Ind. 183.

He also insists that the court erred in overruling the demurrers to the second and third paragraphs of the appellee’s answer. We are of the opposite opinion; each of the paragraphs is good.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.