Spiva v. Williams
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 20 Tex. 442 |
| Parties | ANDREW SPIVA v. ISAAC WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
A judgment for the plaintiff for a certain sum, “subject to an offset agreed upon by the parties aforesaid,” was reversed for uncertainty. Post, 471; 25 Tex. 173;30 Tex. 258.
Error from Bell. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor.
The defendant had pleaded a set-off of $100. The facts are stated in the opinion.
E. Walker, for plaintiff in error. It is manifest that this is not an absolute judgment for $978.36; nor does it appear from the record for what sum it should be, or was intended to be. The sum of the offset allowed should have been stated, to show the amount for which the execution might issue. Without this the judgment as it stands is so vague and uncertain as to be a nullity.
The following judgment was entered in this case: “This day came the plaintiff by his attorney, and the defendant withdrawing his plea by him pleaded, says nothing in bar or preclusion of plaintiff's action, subject to an offset agreed upon by the parties.
It is therefore considered by the court, that the said plaintiff have and recover of and from the said defendant, the sum of nine hundred and seventy-eight 36-100 dollars, principal and interest, and ten per cent. interest on the same from the date of this judgment until paid, subject to an offset agreed upon by said parties aforesaid, and all costs in this behalf expended, for which execution may issue.”
Plaintiff in error, against whom this judgment was rendered, assigned error as follows, to wit: “The judgment is vague and indeterminate in not defining the amount of the offset, to which the same is subject, and to the benefit of which the said Spiva is entitled.” This judgment is erroneous, because of its uncertainty, being rendered for a particular amount “subject to an offset agreed upon by the parties.”
The very object of a suit is to adjudicate and declare the respective rights of the parties, in a shape so that the ministerial officers can with certainty carry into execution the judgment of the court, without the ascertainment and determination of additional facts. It is obvious that such is not the case here.
It is said by the supreme court of Tennessee (Justice Green delivering the opinion) that “the entry ought to have contained in itself sufficient precision and certainty to have enabled the clerk to issue an execution by the inspection of it, without reference to other entries.” Boyken v. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Cas. & Life Ins. Co. v. Boyd
...of facts not stated in the judgment. Hendryx v. W. L. Moody Cotton Co., 257 S.W. 305, (Tex.Civ.App.) 1923, n. w. h.; Spiva v. Williams, 20 Tex. 442. A purported judgment which leaves undecided a question or issue essential to the determination of the controversy between the parties is bad f......
-
Stafford v. King
...law from the facts found, and all must be so certain that the ministerial officers may execute the judgment without further directions. 20 Tex. 442, 471;22 Tex. 173;25 Tex. 173. Where the issue was as to the conflict of surveys, the verdict should find what the actual conflict is; and the j......
-
Giles v. Union Land Co.
...first ascertaining and adjudicating other and additional facts than those shown by the evidence or found by the court or jury. Spiva v. Williams, 20 Tex. 442; Roberts v. Landrum, 20 Tex. 475; Barnett v. Caruth, 22 Tex. 174, 73 Am. Dec. 255; Mussina v. Goldthwaite, 34 Tex. 132, 7 Am. Rep. 28......
-
Brook Mays Organ Co., Inc. v. Sondock
...or obligations imposed upon a party. Many years ago, the rule was announced with reference to certainty in judgments. In Spiva v. Williams, 20 Tex. 442 (1857), it was "The very object of a suit is to adjudicate and declare the respective rights of the parties, in a shape so that the ministe......