
    Burton v. Lawrence.
    where the judgment ree.ited that “the. defendants, by leave o.f the court, withdrew thoir pleas, and say they cannot deny the plaintilf’s causo of action against them for debt and interest ill plaintilfls petition claimed:” JJeld. That it was in cjtoct a confession of judgment for a sum certain to be ascertained simply by reference to‘the petition, without tile necessity of a jury to ascertain the indebtedness. (Note 81.)
    Error from Houston. This suit was brought by the' defendant in error against the plaintiff in error and others upon a bond ill tlie penal sum of $5,600, conditioned for tlie delivery of certain slaves, the payment of their hire, and the incurring of other expenses in furnishing clothing for the slaves and paying taxes upon them, &e. The breach assigned was the non-payment of the hire of tlie negroes, alleged to lie of the value of $214.90, and the non-payment of .taxes upon them, amounting to $7.90, which sums tlie plaintiff alleged were unpaid, with tlie exception of $85, the receipt of which was acknowledged.
    At the Fall Term, 184S, two of the defendants. Burton and Ilall, answered, and judgment by default was taken against tlie other defendant. Afterwards, at the. Spring Term, 1849, the defendants Hall and Burton withdrew their an7 .swer. and a Unal judgment was rendered against all- the defendants for $134.47. The defendant Burton brought a writ of error. .
    
      Thomas J. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.
    Tlie error relied on is in giving judgment without ascertaining the amount, either by agreement, confession, writ; of inquiry, or in any other legal way.
    B. A. Miller, for defendant in error.
    Tiie record shows that tlie defendants withdrew their defense, which, though not technically, yet in effect, is a confession of judgment. (Cartwright v. Koff, 1 Tex.-Br,-78.) Tlie defendant in ■error suggests delay.
   IViieeIjER, J.

Tlie error assigned is that tlie court gave judgment against the plaintiff in error without the. Undiug of a'jnry. ~

In the case of Cartwright v. Roff (1 Tex. R., 78) it was decided that a with-cTrawal of the answer by the lefeiiclant and a judgment by ?nZ dwil i~ equivalent toa confession of judgment.

Note 81.-Wheeler v. Pope, 5 T., 262; Little v. Crittenden, 10 T., 192; Townson v. Moore, 13 T., 36; Story v. Nichols, 22 T., 87; Garner v. Burleson, 26 T., 318; Goss v. Pilgrim, 28 T., 263.

The judgment in this case recites that “the defendants, by leave, of the court, withdrew their pleas, and say that they cannot deny the plaintiff's' cause of action against them for debt and interest, in plaintiff’s petition claimed,’’ &c.

Regarding this as in effect a confession of judgment for a sum certain, to be ascertained simply by reference to the petition, there could be no necessity of a jury to ascertain the amount of indebtedness. Tins was ascertained by the confession of the defendant.

The case cannot be distinguished in principle from that of Cartwright v. Roff.

Judgment affirmed.  