History
  • No items yet
midpage
Barnett v. Caruth
22 Tex. 173
Tex.
1858
Check Treatment
Roberts, J.

The 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.)

The 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.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Barnett v. Caruth
Court Name: Texas Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1858
Citation: 22 Tex. 173
Court Abbreviation: Tex.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.