Swift v. Faris
This text of 11 Tex. 18 (Swift v. Faris) 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
We believe there was no error in rendering final judgment, upon the default. There was nothing to be assessed by the jury, the award upon which the suit was brought, being for a certain and specific sum, as much so as if the suit had been founded on a judgment; and the award would have supported an action of debt, at Common Law.
Had the suit been brought, on the penalty, stipulated in the bond, for failure to perform the award, it would have been necessary to have impannelled a jury, to assess the actual amount due. We believe, therefore, that this objection is not well taken.
The second error assigned is, we believe, unavailable to the plaintiff in error. The amendment only made the judgment correspond with the award, and is, in principle, the same as making the judgment follow a verdict. Under Article 786 of Hartley’s Digest, this amendment could have been made in vacation; and surely there can be no objection to its being made in Term time. The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 Tex. 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swift-v-faris-tex-1853.