Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Tex. 727

Tally v. Thorn

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1872

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1872-07-01

Error from Smith. Tried below before the Hon. W. M. Taylor. There is no occasion to state other facts than those noticed by the court in its opinion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1977

6 state decisions

2018721880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Evans, P. J.

¶1This was an action of trespass to try title, brought at the July term, 1863, of the District Court of Smith county, for the recovery of a league of land lying in the county of Smith, and also to recover damages.

¶2At the Fall term, 1863, defendants put in a general demurrer and general denial, and continued the cause.

¶3The record discloses no other order until the Spring term, 1869, at which term there was a judgment by default, and writ of inquiry, and a jury impanneled t<b assess the damages, who returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs, damages at three thousand one hundred and eighteen dollars upon which the court rendered a judgment that plaintiffs have and recover of the defendants the land described in their petition, and also the sum of three thousand one hundred and eighteen dollars, and all costs, etc.

¶4The counsel assign, as we think correctly, that there was error in rendering a judgment by default against defendants when their answer had been duly filed.

¶5*7292. There was error in rendering judgment for the land, and also for damages, upon the verdict of the j ury—there being no proof or finding by the jury that plaintiffs had title to the land.

¶6The j ndgment recites that defendants had filed their answer, and that it was called to the attention of the court, and hence it does not come within the rule of Hopkins v. Donaho, 4 Texas, 337, or of Pierson v. Burney, 15 Texas, 272.

¶7The answer denied the plaintiffs’ title and right to damages, and both were put in issue. At common law actions of ejectment are classed with trespass, assault, false imprisonment, etc., and not regarded liquidated demands. To recover, the plaintiff was required to prove his title. According to our statute, the plaintiff must establish his right to the land before he can recover in trespass to try title. (Arts. 5292-3, Paschal’s Digest.)

¶8In this case the defendants pleaded not guilty, and the plea had not been withdrawn. The jury could not assess damages until the plaintiffs had shown title in themselves. The petition alone can form no basis for the assessment of damages in favor of one who has proved no title. Had the demand been liquidated, the clerk could have assessed the damages without a jury ; but how can a jury assess damages until the right to the thing in controversy is established ?

¶9The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded.

¶10Reversed and remanded.

/35/tex/727 · .json · Public domain