Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Tex. 461

Fitzgerald v. Evans & Huffman

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1880

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1880-06-15

Error from Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. J. A. Carroll. Samuel Evans and W. A. Huffman, the defendants in error, on the 12th day of March, 1878, filed in the district court of Tarrant county a petition for the revival of a dormant judgment rendered in that court in their favor against A. Fitzgerald, plaintiff in error, on the 15th day of March, 1876, for a sum of money specified in that judgment.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““(1) The facts judicially ascertained, with the manner of ascertaining them entered of record. (2) The recorded declaration of the court, promvuncing the legal consequences of the facts thu^udieially ascertained.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including National Radio Exchange, Inc. v. Calhoun, Hickman v. Swain

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 1982

13 state decisions

3018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Bonner, Associate Justice.

¶1In this case, doubtless through inadvertence, that which purports to be the judgment of revivor is so defective in a material part as not to constitute a final judgment.

¶2A final judgment should contain: 1. The facts judicially ascertained, with the manner of ascertaining them entered of record. 2. The recorded declaration of the court, pronouncing the legal consequences of the facts thus judicially ascertained. Mayfield v. The State, 40 Tex., 290; Hanks v. Thompson, 5 Tex., 10; Warren v. Shuman, id., 449; Scott v. Burton, 6 Tex., 322; Hancock v. Metz, 7 Tex., 177.

¶3The purported judgment under consideration is but a recital of the former one, showing that execution was ordered thereon, .but did not adjudge that execution again issue. Freeman on Judgments, §443; Camp v. Gainer, 8 Tex., 373; Bullock v. Ballew, 9 Tex., 498.

¶4There being no final judgment in this case sufficient to support the appeal, the same, under the long established practice of this court, is dismissed.

¶5Dismissed.

¶6[Opinion delivered June 15, 1880.]

/53/tex/461 · .json · Public domain