Fitzgerald v. Evans & Huffman

53 Tex. 461, 1880 Tex. LEXIS 92
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1880
DocketCase No. 4046
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

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.

Bluebook
Fitzgerald v. Evans & Huffman, 53 Tex. 461, 1880 Tex. LEXIS 92 (Tex. 1880).

Opinion

Bonner, Associate Justice.

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

Craig E. Mendenhall v. Darryl E. Glenn
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012
Chandler v. Reder
635 S.W.2d 895 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Doornbos v. Looney
159 S.W.2d 155 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Cotten v. Stanford
147 S.W.2d 930 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Fawver v. First Texas Joint Stock Land Bank of Houston
115 S.W.2d 1217 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Swanson v. Holt
56 S.W.2d 266 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
National Radio Exchange, Inc. v. Calhoun
52 S.W.2d 946 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
C. C. Slaughter Co. v. Slaughter
284 S.W. 350 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Kinney v. Tri-State Telephone Co.
222 S.W. 227 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1920)
Hickman v. Swain
210 S.W. 548 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Trammell v. Rosen
157 S.W. 1161 (Texas Supreme Court, 1913)
Trammell v. Rosen
153 S.W. 164 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Young v. Robinson
135 S.W. 715 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Corley v. Corley
44 S.E. 132 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1903)
Meyers v. Bloon, Cohn & Co.
50 S.W. 217 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1899)
Carswell v. Crowther
16 S.W. 172 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 Tex. 461, 1880 Tex. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-evans-huffman-tex-1880.