Case Name: Cooke v. Pope's Administrator
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1812-03-19
Citations: 3 Munf. 167
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Cooke v. Pope’s Administrator.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 662–662

Head Matter:
*Cooke v. Pope’s Administrator.
Thursday, March 19th, 1812.
D, Confusion of Judgment — Release of Errors. — A defendant’s relinquishing his plea and agreeing to the plaintiff’s damages, is a confession of judgment. and of course, a release of errors.
See Rev. Code. vol. 1, c. 76, sect. 43, p. 113, and 2 Call, 83, Skipwith v. Morton & Co.
This was an'action for covenant broken, instituted by John H. Pope, administrator of John Pope, deceased, against Stephen Cooke, in the Superior Court of Eoudoun County. The defendant pleaded covenants performed; and a special plea, to which the plaintiffs demurred; and upon argument, the demurrer was sustained, the special "plea overruled, and the cause continued. At a subsequent term, the defendant “relinquished his former plea, and it was agreed by the parties, that the plaintiff had sustained damages by occasion of the defendant’s breach of the covenants in the declaration mentioned, to 510 dollars 20 cents, with legal interest on 320 dollars, being the principal sum due, from the 7th day of April, 1810, until payment, beside, costs: therefore, it was considered by the Court, that the plaintiff recover against the defendant, his damages agreed as aforesaid, and his costs.” By consent of parties, an appeal was allowed the defendant upon his entering into bond and security in the Clerk’s Office within one month; which security was to be approved by the plaintiff’s attorney; and was accordingly given by the defendant.
Wickham, for the appellant,
contended, that the declaration was defective in not setting forth the gist of the action; and that he was not precluded from making this objection, by having agreed the damages.
Stanard, for the appellee,
insisted upon the sufficiency of the declaration ; and that, if it were otherwise, there was a confession of judgment, and therefore all errors were released.
See monographic note on “Judgments by Confession” appended to Richardson v. Jones, 12 Gratt. 53.
The principal case was cited in M’Rae v. Turnpike Co., 3 Rand. 164.

Opinion:
Monday, March 23d, the following opinion of the Court was delivered by
JUDGE ROANE.
*"The Court (without considering, or deciding on any other questions made, or arising in this cause) is of opinion, that the confession of judgment, by the appellant, in the Court below, bars him from complaining of the errors, if there be any, in the proceedings; and, on this ground, affirms the judgment."