OpenJurist

64 US 320 William Sutton v. Stacy B Bancroft

64 U.S. 320

23 How. 320

16 L.Ed. 454

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.

December Term, 1859

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.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

1

The plaintiffs 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.

2

They do not pretend to allege any error in the proceedings. The judgment is therefore affirmed, with ten per cent. damages.