Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

101 Ark. 348

Cave v. Smith

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 1, 1912

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1912-01-01

Reed, Judge; 1. The judgment was appealable. There is no exception in the statute authorizing appeals from judgments of justices of the peace except “a dismissal for want of prosecution.” Kirby’s Digest, § 4665. If it had been the intention of the lawmakers to exclude judgments by consent, by confession or by default from appealable judgments, they would have expressed that intention in the statute.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A party confessing judgment is estopped by his own voluntary act from questioning its correctness.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Riverside Marine Remanufacturing, Inc.

Relies on Walker v. Wills · Jeffries v. Morgan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1912-01-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1996

7 state decisions

20191219201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hart, J.

¶1This suit was brought in a justice’s court by T. J. and A. W. Smith against D. W. Cave to recover $13.50 alleged to be due on account. The judgment of the justice, after stating the fact that both parties were present in person, recites: “And the defendant acknowledged service of the summons, and without any further proceedings the defendant asked the court to enter judgment against him for said sum sued on $13.50, and then filed affidavit and bond for an appeal to the circuit court,” etc.

¶2On motion of the plaintiffs, the circuit court dismissed the appeal, and 'the defendant has appealed from that judgment.

¶3It is contended by counsel for defendant that, under the authority of Walker v. Wills, 5 Ark. 166, the record of the justice does not show a judgment by confession; but we can not agree with them. In that case the defendant pleaded want of consideration to the note sued on and a demurrer to the plea was sustained. He then filed an amended plea, and it was stricken from the files. He then refused to plead further, and agreed in open court that judgment might be rendered against him. The court held that this was not a confession of judgment. The reason evidently was that the defendant was relying on his plea already made, and only meant to say that he had no further defenses to make. Here the case is different. The defendant entered his appearance, and, without interposing any defense whatever, asked the court to enter judgment against him for the amount sued for. This was a confession of judgment

¶4It is next contended by counsel for defendant that under section 4665 of Kirby’s Digest he had a right to appeal from a judgment by confession. We do not think so. A party confessing judgment is estopped by his own voluntary act from questioning its correctness. Jeffries v. Morgan, 1 Ark. 169.

¶5Section 4614 of Kirby’s Digest provides that the rules and proceedings governing confessions of judgment in the circuit court shall apply to justices' courts. And section 6251 provides that the confession shall operate as a release of errors.

¶6The judgment will be affirmed.

/101/ark/348 · .json · Public domain