Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Tex. 32

Clark v. Compton

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

Suit by appellee against William Clark and Jackson Clark, for trespass, cutting timber, &c. Judgment by default, with an order for the empanneling of a jury to assess the damages. The entry of judgment was in the usual form, “ came the parties, by their attorneys,” &c.; verdict for the plaintiff for $250, damages.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1996

4 state decisions

10185518601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wheeler, J.

¶1A judgment, entered by default, under the Statute, (Hart. Dig. Art. 812,) does not ascertain the amount, and therefore is not final, in the first instance, but becomes a final judgment, when the amount is ascertained and entered on the record. It, however, is final in the first instance, as respects the right of the plaintiff and the liability of the defendant. Nothing remains to make it a final judgment, but to as*33certain the amount. This is done by the Clerk (unless a jury is asked for by one of the parties) when the cause of action is liquidated and proved by writing ; but, if the cause of action is unliquidated, a jury is sworn ro assess the damagesof the plaintiff. (Ib.) In the present case, the judgment by default established the plaintiff’s right to recover, and fixed the de fendants’ liability, for the amount of damages which should be assessed by the jury. There is nothing in the record, from which it may be inferred that this right of the plaintiff was waived or abandoned by him. The jury was empanneled simply to assess the damages. That the defendants were guilty of the trespass, as charged, had been already established by the judgment by default. The province of the jury, therefore, was, simply to ascertain the amount of damage which the plaintiff had sustained by reason of the trespass. The plaintiff was under no necessity to introduce evidence to prove the fact that the defendants were guilty of the trespass as alleged. There is no error in the judgment and it is affirmed.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/15/tex/32 · .json · Public domain