The appellee, who was the plaintiff, sued Sloan and Fordyce upon a promissory note for the payment of 400 dollars. The note bears date Mmch 7,1857, was payable to the order of Walters and Cummings at six months, and was by them assigned to the plaintiff.
Demurrer to the complaint overruled. This ruling is assigned for error; but as no exceptiоn appears to have been taken to the rеfusal to sustain the demurrer; the error thus assigned is not properly before us.
Defendants answered in seven paragraphs, to which there were replies. And the causе being thus at issue, the defendants withdrew their appearаnce, and thereupon the
1. That the judgment is irregular and illegal.
• 2. That the decision of the Court is contrary to law.
3. The Court erred in hearing the evidence and assessing the.damages after defendants had withdrawn their appearance.
This motion was overruled, and the defendants excepted.
In Carver v. Williams, 10 Ind. R. 267, it was held that if a party appear and plead, and then fail to appear at the trial, his рleadings stand; but if, after pleading, he withdraw his appearance, his pleadings go with it; that without an appearance, a party cannot answer; nor can hе have an answer standing where there is no appеarance. This exposition is, no doubt, correct; and when applied to the case at bar, at onсe shows that the defendants, having withdrawn them appearance, also withdrew their answer. But it is insisted, there being no аnswer, that the judgment is erroneous, because the plаintiff, instead of proceeding to the trial of the cause upon the evidence, “should have taken a judgment by default or nil dicit.” It must be conceded, that the action of the Court, as it appears in the transcript before us, was not in accordance with the ordinary rules of рrocedure; still the record presents a mere irregularity, which could not, in any degree, result in injury to the defendants. And the statutory rule is, that “No judgment shall be stayed or reversеd, in whole or in part, by the Supreme Court, for any defeсt in form, variance, or imperfections containеd in the record, pleadings, process, entries, or other proceedings therein, which by law might be amended by thе Court below; but such defects shall be deemed amendеd in the Supreme Court,” &c. 2 B. S. p. 162, § 580. Here, the record sufficiеntly shows that the judgment is not in conflict with the substantial rights of the pаrties, and that the proceedings, so
The judgment is affirmed with 10 per cent, damages and costs.