Johnson v. Smith

14 Tex. 412
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 14 Tex. 412 (Johnson v. Smith) 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
Johnson v. Smith, 14 Tex. 412 (Tex. 1855).

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

The practice of entering judgment now for [413]*413then, where the first entry was incomplete, has been of not unfrequent occurrence, 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 objection we do not think well taken. The judgment is described in the bond, accurately, by the names of the parties, the Term of the Court, and the legal effect of the judgment; and this, we think, is sufficient. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.

Motion overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sun Lumber Co. v. Huttig Sash & Door Co.
36 S.W.2d 561 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
H. L. Red v. J. E. Bischoff
269 S.W. 1117 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Rouser v. Wright
205 S.W. 849 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Willis v. State
150 S.W. 904 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Stutsman v. Sharpless
101 N.W. 105 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Hamilton v. James A. Cushman Manufacturing Co.
39 S.W. 641 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1897)
Sears v. Green
1 Posey 727 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1880)
Ham v. State
4 Tex. Ct. App. 645 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1878)
Baldridge v. Scott
48 Tex. 178 (Texas Supreme Court, 1877)
Smith v. State
1 Tex. Ct. App. 408 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Tex. 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-smith-tex-1855.