Fisher & Lanning v. Quillen
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas County. In the court of common pleas Quillen sued Fisher & Lanning in an action for money only. In one of the journal entries appears the following: “And now come the defendants and in open court offer to confess judgment in favor of the plaintiff for one hundred and ninety dollars and costs to and including- this date.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas County. In the court of common pleas Quillen sued Fisher & Lanning in an action for money only. In one of the journal entries appears the following: “And now come the defendants and in open court offer to confess judgment in favor of the plaintiff for one hundred and ninety dollars and costs to and including- this date.” Subsequently, the following judgment was entered: “It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff, Oscar A. Quillen, recover from the defendants; Craft Fisher and Wayne Lanning, partners doing business under…
1Opinion of the CourtSummers, J.
The general rule as to costs, in actions for recovery of money only, is (Section 5348, Revised Statutes) that they shall be allowed, of course, to the plaintiff upon a judgment in his favor, when it is not otherwise provided by statute. It is otherwise provided by Section 5141, Revised Statutes, that: “The defendant in an action for the recovery of money may offer in court to confess judgment for part of the amount claimed, or part of the causes involved in the action; whereupon, if the plaintiff, being present, refuse to accept such confession of judgment, in full of his demands against the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. MedaryOhio Supreme Court · 1848
- Underhill v. SheaNebraska Supreme Court · 1887