Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 Tex. 173

Barnett v. Caruth

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1858

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1858-07-01

Error from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. Suit by defendants in error, against plaintiffs in error, upon a note, and to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of the same. Plaintiffs in error waived service, and filed no answer.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1931

3 state decisions

10185818601870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Roberts, J.

¶1The judgment is erroneous, because it is uncertain what is the amount of the recovery. After reciting the verdict, &c., it reads, “ It is ordered, adjudged and decreed, by “the court, that the plaintiffs do recover of the defendants for “their debt, damages and costs;” entirely omitting the sum adjudged, and making no reference to the verdict, by which it could he rendered certain, and thereby be complete within itself. (Spiva v. Williams, 20 Tex. Rep. 442; Roberts v. Landrun, Id. 471.)

¶2The parties appeared and' tried the case before a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff, for the principal and interest. of the note, without any express reference to the mortgage. This at least leaves the matter doubtful, upon the most liberal construction, whether or not the jury passed upon the mortgage which was foreclosed. Therefore, it does not present such a case as this court will undertake to correct, hy rendering the judgment here. The judgment is reversed and remanded.

¶3Reversed and remanded.

/22/tex/173 · .json · Public domain