Fitzgerald v. Evans & Huffman
This text of 53 Tex. 461 (Fitzgerald v. Evans & Huffman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In 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.
A 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.
The 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.
There being no final judgment in this case sufficient to support the appeal, the same, under the long established practice of this court, is dismissed.
Dismissed.
[Opinion delivered June 15, 1880.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
53 Tex. 461, 1880 Tex. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-evans-huffman-tex-1880.