Lee v. Stern
Decision Date | 31 March 1856 |
Citation | 22 Mo. 575 |
Parties | LEE et al., Respondents, v. STERN et al., Appellants. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where, in an action on a contract, an offer was made by the defendant in writing, under section 1 of article 23 of the practice act of 1849, to allow judgment to be taken against him for a certain sum, which offer was accepted by plaintiff and judgment entered accordingly; held, that defendant is not entitled to a judgment for costs, on the ground that the sum for which judgment is thus allowed to be taken is below the jurisdiction of the court.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Hill, Grover & Hill, for appellants.
Hudson & Thomas, for respondents.
The question in this case arises under the 1st section of the 23d article of the present practice act. The section referred to is in these words:
This was an action on a contract, and the defendant made an offer to confess a judgment for $31 50, which was accepted by the plaintiffs. The suit was in the Court of Common Pleas. Judgment was entered for the sum confessed, and also for costs. The defendants maintained that the judgment for costs should have been entered for them, as the amount confessed, and for which judgment was rendered, was below the jurisdiction of the court. The question is, for whom should the judgment for costs have been given?
This case, in our opinion, is not influenced by the general law of costs, nor the decisions which have been made under it. It stands on the section of law which has been copied above. We conceive it would be evidently against the spirit of the act to make the plaintiff lose his costs by an acceptance of the offer of the defendants. Such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henry v. Lowe
...deposit in court, Februry 12th, 1877, and the offer of judgment October 9th, 1877. Wag. Stat., 346, § 25; Wag. Stat., 1048, § 51; Lee v. Stern, 22 Mo. 575; Dakin v. Dunning, 7 Hill 30; Jahnson v. Sagar, 10 How. Pr. 552; Parsons on Costs, 81, 82; Pike v. Johnson, 47 N. Y. 1; Johnston v. Catl......
-
Haffner v. Tainter
...be found for every judgment for costs in a mere legal action, at least in the State of Missouri. Parr v. Railroad, 194 Mo.App. 416; Lee v. Stern, 22 Mo. 575. C. Bruere for respondent. The costs accuring after the date of the service of the offer were properly taxed against the appellant. Se......
- Charles v. Rankin