Johnson v. Another
| Decision Date | 01 January 1855 |
| Citation | 14 Tex. 412 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. SMITH AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Where there was a verdict for the defendant at the Spring Term, 1849, but the court failed to enter up in proper form a final judgment upon the verdict, and on motion of the plaintiff, at the Spring Term, 1853, a final judgment was entered upon the verdict nunc pro tunc, from which judgment the plaintiff appealed, this court, on motion to dismiss the appeal, held that the judgment was properly entered, and that the appeal was in time. (Note 64.)
Appeal from Harrison. It appears by the record that there was a trial and verdict for the defendants at the Spring Term of the court, 1849, but the court failed to enter up in proper form a final judgment upon the verdict. Subsequently, at the Spring Term, 1853, upon the motion of the plaintiff, final judgment was entered upon the verdict nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff had given notice of appeal at the trial, and the entry now for then contains the notice. The appeal bond was filed after the entry of judgment.
Clough & Lane and Allen & Hale, for appellant.
Henderson & Jones, for appellee.
The practice of entering judgment now for then, where the first entry was incomplete, has been of not unfrequent occurence, and has, in more cases than one, received the sanction of this court. Appeals from judgments thus rendered have invariably been entertained. The entry bears date at the time it is made, and the judgment, for the purposes of the appeal, is to be considered as having been then rendered. But it has the same force and effect as a judgment of the court, as if the entry had been made at the proper time, the entry of the judgment now, that is, when it is actually done, being allowed in law to pass as a substitute or equivalent for doing it then or before, having the same legal effect. (Edwards v. Holman, supra.) The appeal could not be prosecuted successfully until the actual entry of judgment; consequently the appeal bond must have referred to that time, and the appeal cannot be dismissed because it was not sooner filed. The law does not require impossibilities. To refuse to entertain the appeal on this ground would be, in effect, to deny the right to appeal in such a case. We have no doubt of the right to entertain jurisdiction of the appeal bond within the prescribed period after the date of the entry of final judgment.
It is objected that the bond does not sufficiently describe the judgment; but this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rouser v. Wright
...a judgment that disposed of all the parties, which was done, and from the judgment so rendered the appeal was properly taken. Johnson v. Smith, 14 Tex. 412." We can see no difference in principle between that case and this. There the failure was to dispose of one of the parties, here one of......
-
Stutsman v. Sharpless
...Bank at Mobile, 10 Ala. 375; In re Fifteenth Avenue Extension, 54 Cal. 179; Coon v. Grand Lodge, etc., 76 Cal. 354 (18 P. 384); Johnson v. Smith, 14 Tex. 412. The appeal in time. But it is said that the entry in December, 1901, admitting the will of 1868 to probate, was an order or judgment......
-
Willis v. State
...judgment nunc pro tunc as held by all the authorities. Palmo v. Slayden, 100 Tex. 13, 92 S. W. 796, and authorities there cited; Johnson v. Smith, 14 Tex. 412; O'Connell v. State, 18 Tex. 343. It is unnecessary to cite other The judgment is affirmed. ...
-
Red v. Bischoff
...J. The motion of defendants in error to dismiss is overruled, upon the principle announced in the following cases, to wit: Johnson v. Smith, 14 Tex. 412; Henry v. Boulter, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 387, 63 S. W. 1056; Railway Co. v. Texas, etc., 50 Tex. Civ. App. 182, 110 S. W. 140; Slayden & Co. v......