Case: William B. Sutton, Samuel L. Griffith, and James Sutton, Copartners under the Firm and Style of Sutton, Griffith, & Co., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Stacy B. Bancroft, Thomas Beaver, and others, Copartners under the Firm and Style of Bancroft, Beaver, & Co.
Abbreviation: Sutton v. Bancroft
Decision Date: 1859-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 23 How. 320
Volume: 64
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: William B. Sutton, Samuel L. Griffith, and James Sutton, Copartners under the Firm and Style of Sutton, Griffith, & Co., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Stacy B. Bancroft, Thomas Beaver, and others, Copartners under the Firm and Style of Bancroft, Beaver, & Co.
Judges: 
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
William B. Sutton, Samuel L. Griffith, and James Sutton, Copartners under the Firm and Style of Sutton, Griffith, & Co., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Stacy B. Bancroft, Thomas Beaver, and others, Copartners under the Firm and Style of Bancroft, Beaver, & Co.
Where parties were sued on a promissory note executed by them, did not pretend to have any defence, entered' a false plea which was overruled on demurrer, refused to plead in bar, and had judgment entered against them for want of a plea, this court will affirm the judgment with ten per cent, damages.
This case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the western district of Arkansas
It was submitted on a printed brief by Mr. Watkins for the defendants in error, no counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Watkins stated the case, and said that the judgment was rendered on the 22d of May, 1856, since which time the hands of the plaintiffs below have been tied from having execution, and the plaintiffs, in error have never appeared in this court, nor have they taken any steps to prosecute their writ of error.
The defendants in error now ask for an affirmance of the . judgment, with exemplary damages for delay.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice GRIER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintifls in error were sued on a promissory note executed by them. They did not pretend to have any defence. They entered a false plea, which was. overruled on demurrer. They refused to plead in bar. Judgment was entered against them in due form, for want of a plea.
They do not pretend to allege any error in the proceedings. The judgment is therefore affirmed, with fen per cent, damages.