San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stevinson

FINCH, P. J.

This is an action in eminent domain. From the judgment rendered both the plaintiff and the defendant James J. Stevinson, Incorporated, appealed. On June 8, 192.1, the plaintiff served on the said defendant, and on the 11th of .the same month filed herein, its confession of error as follows: “Now comes respondent on the appeal of James J. Stevinson (a Corporation), and confesses error in said cause, and consents to a reversal of the judgment therein on the appeal of the said James J. Stevinson (a Corporation).’’ On June 22, 1921, the defendant filed herein its motion for dismissal of its appeal, and on the 25th of that month it filed the following: “Comes now, James J. Stevinson, a corporation, defendant in the above-entitled-action, and dismisses the appeal heretofore taken by

[757]

it. And the clerk of the above-entitled court is hereby requested and instructed to enter this dismissal of record!” The plaintiff contends that the judgment should be reversed, the defendant that the appeal should be dismissed. No cause is shown why the defendant’s motion should be denied, other than the right claimed by plaintiff to a reversal of the judgment on the defendant’s appeal. The only question then is whether the judgment should be reversed on the plaintiff’s confession of error.

The confession is not of any particular error but only that there was “error in said cause.” In the defendant’s appeal, no record has been brought up, so that it cannot be ascertained upon what errors reliance for reversal was placed. In the cases cited by the plaintiff, where reversals were had upon confessions of error by the respondents therein, there appears to have been no objections made by the appellants to such reversals except in the case of

Newman

v.

Newman Clock Co.,

195 Ill. App. 373. In that 'case it was held that “a confession of error does not preclude the consideration of errors not confessed.” The rule there announced is in harmony with the holding in

Sun Ins. Co.

v.

White,