(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM VOLUME XLIX"

ill in HI 






107 146 




CITE BY TITJL-IT A2STD 

s 22 



CORPUS JURIS 
SECUNDUM 

A COMPLETE RESTATEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 

AMERICAN LAW 

AS DEVELOPED BY 

ALL REPORTED CASES 



By 

The Editorial Staffs 

of 
THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK CO. 

and 
WEST PUBLISHING CO. 



VOLUME XLIX 

Kept to Date by Cumulative Annual Pocket Parts 



Brooklyn, N. Y. 
The American Law Book Co. 



The Amerioa.n Law Boole 



EXPLANATION 



r I MrlE object in view in preparing Corpus Juris Secundiim has been two- 
JL fold : First, to provide a complete encyclopedic treatment of the whole 
body of the law, which means that it must be based upon all the reported 
cases; Second, to present each title of the law in form and content most suit- 
able as a means of practical reference for the Bench and Bar. 

Corpus Juris Secundum is therefore a complete restatement of the entire 
"body of American Law. The clear-cut and exhaustive propositions compris- 
ing the text are supported by all the authorities from the earliest times to date. 
The supporting case citations, conspicuously set out in the notes, point to all 
decisions handed down since the publication of Corpus Juris. When the 
searcher may wish to consult earlier authorities, a specific reference to Corpus 
Juris makes available all cases back to 1658. 

Each title is preceded by a complete section analysis, greatly simpli- 
fied to facilitate research. Where the scope of any section is such as to re- 
quire it, a more minute analysis is found thereunder in its appropriate place 
within the title (see Abatement and Revival, Section 112). The convenience 
of this method an innovation in encyclopedic writing must immediately 
commend itself. 

A concise black-letter summary, indicative of its scope, precedes the 
full treatment or statement of the law under each section. These introduc- 
tory summaries, concise and free from interlineation of authorities, have 
proven of great convenience and value in legal research* 

An index is found in the back of each volume covering the titles con- 
tained therein, thus providing another convenient means of ready access to the 
text and notes* 

Corpus Juris Secundum is kept to date by means of annual cumula- 
tive pocket parts for each volume. This feature of supplementation which 
has proved so successful in modern digests and statutes conveniently, and 
with certainty, keeps each title constantly to date through current cases and 
new precedents. 

Corpus Juris Secundum represents tbie combined product of the high'est 
editorial talent and manufacturing skill Its many excellent editorial features 
are fittingly accompanied by corresponding innovations and improvements in 
mechanical arrangement, typography, and design, which .the publisher believes 
will commend 'themselves to the profession as representing a new standard 
in legal publications. THE puBLISHERS 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



REPORTS AND TEXTBOOKS 



A. 

Abb. 

Abb.Adm. 
Abb.App.Dec. 
Abb.Dec. 
Abb.N.Oas. 
Abb.Pr. 
Abb.Pr.N.S. 
A'Beck.Res. 
Judgm. 



[1018JA.O. 

Acton 
Adams 



A 

Atlantic Reporter 

Abbott (U.S.) 

Abbott's Admiralty (U.S.) 

Abbott's Appeals Decisions (N.Y.) 

Abbott's Decisions (N.Y.) 

Abbott's New Cases (N.Y.) 

Abbott's Practice (N.Y.) 

Abbott's Practice New Series (N.Y.) 

A'Beckett's Reserved Judgments 

15)17] Appeal Oases (Can.) 
LW Reports [1918] Appeal Oases 



Add.EcdL 

A.&E. 

A.&K.Eac.L. 

A.&E.Enc.L.&Pr, 

Aik* 

A.K.Marsh. 

Ala. 

Ala.App. 

Alaska 

Alb.LJ. 

A.L.O. 

A1C.&N. 

Alc.Rog.Gas* 

Aleyn 

Alison Pr, 

Allen 

Allen (N.B.) 

Alta.L. 

A.L.R. 

Am.ltankr, 

Ambl. 

A.M.C. 

Am.Corp.Cas, 

Am.Or. 

Am.D. 

Am.&E.Corp.Cas. 

Am.&E.Corp.Cas. 

NS 

Am.&Eng.Ency. 
Law 

Am.&E.EqIX 

Am.&Eng.Pat 

Cas, 
Am.&Eng.R.R, 

Cas, 

Am.Electr.Cas. 
Am.&E.K.Cas. 
Am &B.R.Cas.N 

S. 

AmJJntL. 

Am.L.J. 
AmJJ.J.N.8. 

Am.L.Rec. 
CJ.S. 



Acton (Eng.) 

Adams Reports (N.H.) 

Addison (Pa.) 

Addams' Ecclesiastical (Bng.) 

Adolphus & Ellis (Bug.) 

American & English Encyclopaedia of 

Law 
American & English Encyclopedia of 

Law & Practice 
Aikens (Vt) 
A. K. Marshall (Ky.) 
Alabama 

Alabama Appellate Court 
Alaska 

Albany Law Journal 
American Leading Cases 
Alcott & Napier (Eng.) 
Alcock's Registry Cases (Bng.) 
Aleyn (Eng.) 
Alison's Practice (Sc.) 
Allen (Mass.) 
Allen, New Brunswick 
Alberta Law 
American Law Reports 
American Bankruptcy (U.S.) 
Ambler (Eng.) 
American Maritime Cases 
American Corporation Cases 
American Criminal 
American Decisions 
American & English Corporation 

Oases 

American & English Corporation 
Cases New Series 

American and English Encyclopedia of 
Law 

American & English Decisions in Eq- 
uity 

American and English Patent Oases 

American and English Railroad Oases 
American Electrical Cases 
American & English Railroad Oases 

American & English Railroad Oases 

New Series 
American Journal of International 

American Law Journal (Pa.) 
American Law Journal New Series 

American Law Record (Ohio) 



Am.L.Reg. 
Am.L.Reg.N.S. 
Am.Law Reg.(O. 

S.) 

Am.L.Rev. 
AmJUT.Bankr. 

Am.Law lust 

Am.Negl.Cas. 

Am.NegLR, 

A.M.&0. 

Am.Prob. 

Am.Prob.N.S. 

Am.Pr. 

Am.R. 

Am.R.&Corp. 

Am.R.Rep. 

Am.S.R. 

Am.St.R.D, 

And. 

Andr. 

Ann.Cas. 

Ann.Oas.l912A 

Anstr. 

Anth.N.P. 

App.D.O. 

App.Oas. 

App.Div. 

Anz. 

Ark. 

ArkJust 

Arn. 

Arn.&H. 

Ashra. 

Aspin. ' 

Atk. 

Austr.C.L.R 

AustrJur. 
Austr.L.T. 



Bacon Abr. 

BaiLEq. 

Bailey. 



B.&Ald. 

Baldw. 

BalfPr. 

Ball&B. 

Bank.&InsJa. 

Bann. 

Bann.&A. 

Barb. 

Barb.Oh. 

B.&Arn. 

Barn. 

Barn.0h. 

Barnes 

Barnes Notes 

Batty 

B.Aust 

Baxt 



B.O. 



American Law Register 

American Law Register New Series 

American Law Register Old Series 

American Law Review 

American Law Times Bankruptcy Re- 
ports 

American Law Institute, 
Restatement of the Law 

American Negligence Cases 

American Negligence Reports 

Armstrong, Macartney & Ogle (Ir.) 

American Probate 

American Probate New Series 

American Practice 

American Reports 

American Railroad & Corporation 

American Railway Reports 

American State Reports 

American Street Railway Decisions 

Anderson (Eng.) 

Andrews (Eng.) 

American & English Annotated Oases 

American Annotated Oases 1912A, et 
seq. 

Anstruther (Eng.) 

Authors Nisi Prlug (N.Y.) 

Appeal Cases (D.O.) 

Law Reports Appeal Cases (Eng.) 

Appellate Division (N.Y.) 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

Arkley's Justiciary (Sc.) 

Arnold (Eng.) 

Arnold & Hodges (Eng.) 

Ashmead (Pa.) 

Aspinall's Maritime Oases (Eng.) 

Atkyn (Eng.) 

Commonwealth Law Reports, Aus- 
tralia 

Australian Jurist 

Australian Law Times 

B 

Bacon's Abridgment (Eng.) 

Bailey's Equity (S.O.) 

Bailey's Law (S.C.) 

Barnewall & Adolphus (Eng.) 

Barnewall & Alderson (Eng.) 

Baldwin (U.S.) ^ v 

Balfour's Practice (Sc.) 

Ball&Beatty (Ir.) 

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Reports 

(Eng.) 

Bannister (Eng.) 
Banning & Arden (U.S.) 
Barbour (N.Y.) 
Barbour's Chancery (N.Y.) 
Barron & Arnold (Eng.) 
Barnardiston King's Bench (Eng.) 
Barnardiston Chancery (Bng.) 
Barnes' Practice Cases (Eng.) 
Barnes' Notes (Eng.) 
Batty (Ir.) 

Barron & Austin (Eng.) 
Baxter (Tenn.) 
Bay (S.O.) 

Broderip & Binghaxn (Eng.). 
British Columbia 



Tin 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



B.&0. 

B.&MaoL 

B.D.&O. 

Beatty 

Beav. 

Beay.&WaIRy. 

Cas. 

Boav.R.&C.Cas. 
Beaw.Lex.Mer. 
Bee 
BelL 

Bell App.Cas. 
Bell Cas. 
Bell C.C. 
Bell Comra. 
Bell Sc.Cas. 
Ben. 
BenL 
BenL&D. 
B.&H.O.Cas. 

Bibb 

Bing. 

Bing.N.Cas 

Binn. 

Biss. 

BittW,&P. 

Black 

Blackf. 



Barnewall & Cresswell (Eng.) 

Browne & Macnamara (Eng.) 

Blackham, Dundas & Osborne (Ir.) 

Beatty (Ir.) 

Beavan (Eng.) 

Beavan & Walford's Railway and Ca- 

ual Cases (Eng.) 
English Railway and Canal Cases 
Beawes Lex Mercatoria (Eng.) 
Bee (U.S.) 
Bellewe (Eng.) 
Bell's Appeal Cases (Sc.) 
Bell's Cases (Sc.) 
Bell's Crown Cases (Bng.) 
Bell's Commentaries (Eng.) 
Bell's Scotch Court of Session Cases 
Benedict (U.S.) 
Benloe (Eng.) 
Benloe & Dallison (Eng.) 
Bennett & Heard Leading 

Cases (Eng.) 
Bibb (Ky.) 
Bingbam (Eng.) 
Bingbam's New Oases (Eng.) 
Biiiney (Pa.) 
BisseU (U.S.) 
Bittleson, Wise & Parnell (Eng.) 



Criminal 



Black (U.S.) 
Blackford (Ind.) 



Blackstone Comm. Blacks tone Commentaries 



Bla.H. 

Blair Co. 

Bland 

Bland's Oh. 

BJatcbf. 

Blatckf.&H. 

Blatchf.PrizeCas. 

Bligh 

Blish N.S. 

B.Mon. 

Bond 

Bouvier* 

Bovco 

B.&P. 

B.&P.N.B. 

Bract 

Bradf.Surr. 

Brayt. 

B.R.G. 

Brev. 

Brewst 

Brightly 

Brightly El.Cas. 

Bro.Ch. 

Brock. 

Brock.Cas. 

Brod.&B. 

Brod.&Fr. 

Brodix Am.&E. 

Pat.Cas. 
Bro.Just. 
Brook Abr. 
Brook N.Cas. 
Brooke N.G. 
Bro.P.C. 
Brown Adm. 
Brown, Ch. 
Brown Ecc. 
Brown N.P. 
Brown,Parl.Cas. 
Browne 
Brown.&I. 
BrownL&G. 
Bruce 

Brunn.0oll.0as. 
B.&S. 
B.T.A. 
Buck 

Puller NJP. 
Bulstr. 



Henry Blackstone's English Common 
Pleas (Eng.) 

Blair County (Pa.) 

Bland (Md.) 

Bland Chancery (Md.) 

Blatchford (U.S.) 

Blatchford & Howland (U.S.) 

Blatchford's Prize Cases (U.S.) 

Bligh (Eng.) 

Bligh New Series (Eng.) 

B. Monroe (Ky.) 

Bond (U.S.) 

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 

Boyce (Del.) 

Bosanquet & Puller (Eng.) 

Bosanquet & Puller's New Reports 
(Eng.) 

Brae ton de Legibus et Consuetudini- 
bus AngliiB 

Bradford's Surrogate (N.Y.) 

Brayton (Vt.) 

British Ruling Cases 

Brevard (S.G.) 

Brews ter (Pa.) 

Brightly (Pa.) 

Brightly's Election Gases (Pa.) 

Brown's Chancery (Eng.) 

Brockoiibrough (U.S.) 

Brockenbrough's Virginia Cases 

Broderip & Bingham (Eng.) 

Broderick & JTremontle's Ecclesiasti- 
cal Coses 

Brodix's American. & English Patent 

Cases 

Brouu's Justiciary (Sc.) 
Brook's Abridgments (Eng.) 

Brook's New Gases (Eng,) 

Brooke's New Cases 

Brown's Parliament Oases (Eng.) 

Brown's Admiralty (U.S.) 

Brown's Chancery Cases (fing.) 

Brown Ecclesiastical (Eng.) 

Brown's Michigan Nisi Prius 

Brown Parliamentary Cases (Eng.) 

Browne (Pa.) 

Browning & Lushinffton (Bng.) 

Brownlow & Goldesborough (Eng.) 

Bruce (Sc.) 

Brunner's Collective Oases (U.S.) 

Best & Smith (Eng.) 

Board of Tax Appeals (U.S.) 

Buck (Eng.) 

Buller's Nisi Prius (Eng.) 

Bulstrode (Eng.) 



Burn. 

Burr. 

Burr.S.Oas. 

Busb. 

Busb.Eq. 

Bush 

B.W.C.O. 



Bunbury 
Burnett 



isT) 



Cab.&E. 

Cai. 

Cai.Cas. 

Cal 

Cal.(2d) 

Cal.App. 

Oal.App.(2d) 

Cald. 

CaU 

Calthr. 

CaLUnrep.Cas. 

Cam.Cas. 

Campb. 

Canal Zone 

Can.App.Cas. 

Can.Cr.Cas. 

Can.Exch. 

Cau.L.J. 

Can.LJ.N.S. 

Can.L.T.Occ. 

Notes 
Can.R.Cas. 
Can.S.C. 
Canc&L. 

Car.&K. 

Car.&M. 

Car.&P. 

Car.H.&A. 

Carp.P.O. 

Carter 

Garth. 

Cartwr.Cas. 

Gary 

Cas. 

Cas.tHardw. 

Cas.t.Holt 

Oas.tKing 

Gas.tTalb. 

O.B. 

C.B.N.S. 

C.O.A. 

O.O.PJL 

Cntr.LJ. 

ri891] Ch. 

Ghamb.Rcp. 

Chandl 

Charlt.R.M. 

Charlt.T.UJP. 

Chase 

Ch.0as. 

Ch.Chamb. 

CLOoLOp. 

Ch.D. 

GhestOo. 

Chev. 

Chit. 

Ohoyce Cas.Ch, 

Oh.Rcp. 

Oh.Sent. 

Cinc.L.BuL 

Cinc.Super. 

City Ct.R. 
City Hall Rec. 



._., 

Burrows (Eng.) 
Burrows' Settlement Gas. (Eng.) 
Busbee (N.C.) 
Busbee Equity (N.O.) 
Bush (Ky.) 

Butterworth's Workmen's Compensa- 
tion Cases (Eng.) 



Oababe & Ellis (Eng.) 

Games (N.Y.) 

Games' Cases (N.Y.) 

California 

California Reports, Second Series 

California Appellate Court 

California Appellate Reports, Second 

Series 

Oaldecott (Eng.) 
Call (Va.) 
Calthrop (Eng.) 
California Uureported Gases 
Cameron's Gases (Can.) 
Campbell (Eng.) 
Canal Zone Supreme Court 
Canadian Appeal Canes 
Canadian Criminal Coses 
Canadian Exchequer 
Canada Law Journal 
Canada Law Journal New Serios 

Canadian Law Times Occasional Notes 

Canadian Railway Cases 

Canada Supremo Court 

Cane & Leigh Crown Cases Reserved 

(Eng.) 

Carrington & Kirwan (Bng.) 
Garrington & Marshman (Eng.) 
Carrington & Payne (Eng.) 
Carrow, Hamcrton & Allen (Eng.) 
Carpmacl Patent Gases (Eng.) 
Carter (Eng.) 
Oarthew (Eng^) 
Oartwritfht's Gases (Can.) 
Gary (lOng.) 
Casey (Pa.) 

Gases temp. Hardwickc (Eng.) 
Gases tcrnp. Molt (Eng.) 
Cases temp. King (En#.) 
Oases temp. Talbot (Eng.) 
Common Bench (Manning, Granger & 

Scott) (Eng.) 
Common Bench New Series (Manning, 

Granger & Scott New Series) (Eng.) 
Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S.) 
Court of Customs and 
Central Law Journal 
LAW Reports [1801] Chancery (Eng.) 
Chamber (Ont.) 
Chandler (Wis.) 
R. M. Gharlton (Ga.) 
T. U. P. Charlton (Ga.) 
Chase (U.S.) 
Gases in Chancery (Eng.) 
Chancery Chambers (U.C.) 
Chalmers' Colonial Opinions 
Law Reports Chancery Division 

(Eng.) 

Chester County (Pa.) 
Cheves (S.O.) 
Chitty (Eng.) 

Ghoyce Oases in Ohancery (Eng.) 
Chancery Reports (En#.) 
Chancery Sentinel (N.Y.) 
Weekly Law Bulletin (Oh.) 
Cincinnati Superior Court Reporter 

(Oh.) 

City Court Reports (N.Y.) 
City Hall Recorder (N.Y.) 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



Civ.ProoRep* 
C.J. 



C.J.S. 

C.&K. 

0.&L. 

CLApp< 

CLChT 

Clark &F. 

Clark &Fin,N.S. 

Clarke 

Clarke &S.Dr.Cas.Clarke & 

_(0nt.) 
Clarke Ch. 
Clayt. 

C.L.Chamb. 

Glev.L.Rec. 

Clev.L.Rep. 

C1.&F. 

Clif.El.Cas. 

Cliff. 

C.L.R. 

C.&M. 

C.M.&R. 

Cock f &Rowe. 

Code Rep. 

Code Rep.N.S. 

Coff.Prob. 

Co.Inst. 

Coke 

CoLOas. 

CoL&O.Cas. 

Ool.C.O. 

Coldw. 

ColL 

CoLLJtep. 

GoLLaw Review 

Coll.&E.Bank. 



Civil Procedure Reports (N.Y.) 

Corpus Juris 

Corpus Juris Annotations 

Corpus Juris Secundum 

Carrington & BSrwan (Eng.) 

Connor & Lawson (Ir.V 

Clark's Appeal Cases (Eng.) 

Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.) 

Clark & Finnelly (Eng.) 

Clark's House of Lords Cases (Eng.) 

Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.) 

" " ~ Scully's Drainage Cases 



Colles 

Colo. 

Colo.App- 

Colq. 

Coltm. 

Comb. 

Com.Cas. 

Com.L. 

Gomptr.Treas. 

Dec. 
Comst 
Comyns 
Comyns Dig 1 . 
Con.&Law. 
Conf. 
Conn. 
Conn.Surr. 
Const 
Cooke 
Cooke 
Cooke & A. 
Cook Vice-Adm. 
Coop. 

Coop.Pr.Cas. 
Coop.tJBrough. 

Coop.tXJott. 

Coop.t.EHd. 

Co.P.0. 

Corb.&D. 

Court&MacL 

Cow. 

GowXJr-Rep. 

Cowp. 

Cox.Am.T.M.Cas. 

Cox C.O. 

Cox Oh. 

Cox &Atk. 

G.&P. 

C.P.O. 

C.P.D. 



Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.) 

Clayton's Reports, York' 
(Eng.) 

Chamber's Common Law (U.C.) 

Cleveland Law Record (Oh.) 

Cleveland Law Reporter (Oh.) 

Clark & Finnelly (Eng.) 

Clifford's Southwick Election Cases 

Clifford (U.S.) 

Common Law Reports (Eng.) 

Carrington & Marshman (Eng.) 

Crompton, Meeson & Roscoe (Eng.) 

Cockburn & Rowe's Election Cases 

Code Reporter (N.Y.) 

Code Reports New Series (N.Y.) 

Coffey's Probate (CaL) 

Coke's Institutes 

Coke (Eng.) 

Coleman's Cases (N.Y.) 

Coleman & Caines' Cases (N.Y.) 

Collyer's Chancery Cases (Eng.) 

Coldwell (Tenn.) 

Collyer (Eng.) 

Colorado Law Reporter 

Columbia Law Review 

Collier and Eaton's American Bank- 
ruptcy Reports 

OoUes* Cases in Parliament (Eng.) 

Colorado 

Colorado Appeals 

Colquit 

Coltman (Eng.) 

Comberbach (Eng.) 

Commercial Cases (Eng.) 

Commercial Law (Can.) 

Comptroller Treasury Decisions 

Comstock (N.Y.) 

Comyns (Eng.) 

Comyns Digest (Eng.) 

Connor & Lawson (Ir.) 

Conference Reports (N.C.) 

Connecticut 

Connolly's Surrogate (N.Y.V 

Constitutional Reports (N.C.) 

Cooke (Eng.) 

Cooke (Tenn.) 

Cooke & Alcock (Ir.) 

Cook's Vice-Admiralty (L.C.) 

Cooper's Chancery (Eng.) 

Cooper's Practice Cases (Eng.) 

Cooper's Cases temp. Brougham 

(Eng.) 
Cooper's Cases temp. Cottenham 

(Bng.) 

Cooper's Cases tempore Eldon (Eng.) 
Coke's Reports (Eng.) 
Corbett & DanielTs Election 

(Eng.) 

Courtnay & Maclean (Sc.) 
Cowen (N.Y.) 
Cowen's Criminal (N.Y.) 
Cowper (Eng.) 

Cox's American Trade-Mark Cases 
Cox's Criminal Cases (Eng.) 
Cox's Chancery (Bng,) 



Law Reports Common Pleas Division 
(Eng.) 



Orabbe 
Cranch 
Cranch C.C. 
Cranch PatDec* 
Cr^pp. 
Crawf.&D. 
Crawf.&DAbr* 
Cas. 

Cripp's Ch.Cas. 

Cr.LMag. 

Cr.&Ph/ 



Cro.Car. 
Cro.Eliz. 
Cro.Jac. 

Cromp.&J. 
Cromp.&M. 
Crosw.Pat.Cas* 

Cr.&Ph. 

CtOL 

Ct.Cust.&Pat 

App. 
Cunn. 
Curt 
Curt.EccL 
Gush. 
Cust^A. 
Cyc. 



Dak. 
DaLQP* 
Dall, 
DalL 



Daly 

Dan. 

Dana 

Dane Abr. 

Dans.&L. 

D'Anv.Abr. 

Dauph.Co, 

Dav.&M. 

Davys 



D.B.&M. 
D.C. 

D.Chipm. 
Deac. 
Deac.&O. 
Deady 
Dears.&B. 
Dears.C.C. 
Deas & A. 
De Gex 
De G.F.&J. 
De G.J.&S. 
De G.&J. 
De GJtf.&G. 

De a&Sm. 

Del. 

Del.Cn. 

Del.0o. 

Dem.Surr. 

Den!c.C. 

Desans.Bq. 

Dev.CtCL 

Dev.L. 

Dev.&BaL 

Dick. 

Dill. 

DirLDec. 

Disn. 



Crabbe (U.S.) 

Cranch (U.S.) 

Cranch's Circuit Court (U.S.) 

Cranch's Patent Decisions (U.S.) 

Criminal Appeals (Eng.) 

Crawford & Dix.Or.) 

Crawford & Dix's Abridged Case 



Cripp f s Church and Clergy Cases 
Criminal Law Magazine 
Craig & Phillips (Eng.) 
Christopher Robinson's Admiralt; 

(Eng.) 

Croke Charles (Eng.) 
Croke Elizabeth (Eng.) 
Croke's Reports tempore James (Ja 

cobus) (Eng.) 
Crompton & Jervis (Eng.) 
Crompton & Meesou (Eng.) 
Croswell's Collection of Patent Case 

(U.S.) 

Craig & Phillips (Eng.) 
Court of Claims (U.S.) 

Court of Customs and Patent Appeal 
Cunningham (Eng.) 
Curtis (U.S.) 

Curteis Ecclesiastical (Eng.) 
Gushing (Mass.) 
United States Customs Appeals 
Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure 
Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure As 
notations 



D 

Dakota 

Dalison's Common Pleas (Eng.) 

Dallaman's Decisions (Tex.) 

Dallas (Pa.) 

Dallas (U.S.) 

Dalrymple's Decisions (Sc.) 

Daly (N.Y.) 

Daniell (Eng.) 

Dana (Ky.) 

Dane's Abridgment 

Danson & Lloyd (Eng.) 

D'Anver's Abridgment (Eng.) 

Dauphin County (Pa.) 

Davison & Merivale (Eng.) 

Davys (Ir.) 

Day (Conn.) 

Dunlop, Bell & Murray (Sc.) 

District of Columbia 

D. Chipman (Vt) 

Deacon (Eng.) 

Deacon & Chitty (Eng.) 

Deady (U.S.) 

Dearsley & Bell (Eng.) 

Dearsley's Crown Cases (Eng.) 

Deas & Anderson (Eng.) 

De Gex (Eng.) 

De Gex, Fisher & Jones (IBng.) 

De Gex, Jones & Smith (Eng.) 

De Gex & Jones (Eng.) 

De Gex. MacNaghten & Gordo 

(Eng.) 

De Gex & Smale (Eng.)j 
Delaware 

Delaware Chancery 
Delaware County (Pa.) 
Demarest's Surrogate (N.Y.) 
Denio (N.Y.) 

Denison's Crown Cases (Eng.) 
Desaussure (S.O.) 
Devereux's Court of Claims (U.S.) 
Devereux (N.C.) 
Devereux & Battle (N.C.) 
Dickens (Sc.) 
Dillon (U.S.) 
Dirleton's Decisions (Sc.) 
Disney (Oh.) 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



D.&L, 

Dods. 

Dom.L.R. 

Donnelly 

Dorion 

DougL 

Dougl. 

DougLELCas. 

Dow 

Dow& OL 

Dow.&L. 

Dow.N.S. 

DowL 

Dowl.P.0. 
DowlJP.C.N.S. 

D.&R. 

Draper 

Drew. 

Drinkw. 

D.&R.Mag.Cas. 

D.&R.N.P. 

Dr.&Sm. 

Drury 

Dr.WaL 

Dr.&War. 

D.&SW* 

Dud.Eq. 

DudL 

Duet 

Dunl.B.&M. 

Dunlop 

Dunn, 

Durie 

Durn.&E. 

Duv. 

Dyer 



East 

East.L.R. 

East P.O. 

East.T. 

E.&B. 

E.B.&E. 

E.B.&S. 

E.O.L. 

Eden 

Edgar 

Edm.Sel.Oas. 

E. D. Smith 

Bdw. 

Edw. 

Edw.Abr. 

Edw.Adm. 
E.&E. 
Enc.Pl.&Pr. 
Ency.Law. 

Eng.Ad. 

Eng.C.O. 

Eng.Ch. 

Eng.Ecd. 

Eng.Ecc.R. 

Eng.Exch. 

Eng.L.&Eq. 

Eng.Eep.R. 

Eng.Ry.&O.Oas. 

Eng.&Ir.App. 

Eq.Oas.Abr. 

Eq.Rep. 

E.R.O. 



Dowling Lowndes (Eng.) 

Dodson's Admiralty (Eng.) 

Dominion Law Reports (Can.) 

Donnelly (Eng.) 

Dorion (L.C.) 

Douglas (Eng.) 

Douglass (Mich.) 

Douglas' Election Cases (Eng.) 

Dow (Eng.) 

Dow Clark (Eng.) 

Dowling Lowndes (Eng.) 

Dowling. New Series (Eng.) 

Dowlinrs English Bail Court (Prac 

tice) Cases 

Dowling's Practice Cases (Eng.) 
Dowling's Practice Cases New Series 

(Eng.) 

Dowling Ryland (Eng.) 
Draper (U.C.) 
Drewry (Eng.) 
Drinkwater (Eng.) 
Dowling Ryland's Magistrate Oases 

(Eng.) 

Dowling & Ryland's Nisi Prius (Eng.) 
Drewry Smale (Eng.) 



Drury (Ir.) 

Drury Walsh (Ir.) 

Drury Warren (Ir.) 



Deane & Swabey (Eng.) 

Dudley (S.O.) 

Dudley (Ga.) 

Duer's Superior Oourt (N.Y.) 

Dunlop, Bell & Murray (Sc.) 

Dunlop (Sc.) 

Dunning (Eng.) 

Durie (Sc.) 

Durnford East (Eng.) 

Duvall (Ky.) 

Dyer (Eng.) 



E 

East (Eng.) 

Eastern Law Reporter (Can.) 

East's Pleas of the Crown (Eng.) 

Eastern Term (Eng.) 

Ellis Blackburn (Eng.) 

Ellis, Blackburn & Ellis (Eng.) 

Ellis, Best Smith (Eng.) 

English Common Law 

Eden (Eng.) 

Edgar (Sc.) 

Edmond's Select Oases (N.Y.) 

E. D. Smith (N.Y.) 

Edwards (Eng.) 

Edwards' Chancery (N.Y.) 

Edwards' Abridgment of Prerogative 

Court Cases 

Edwards' Admiralty (Eng.) 
Elk's Ellis (Eng.) 
Encyclopedia of Pleading & Practice 
American and English Encyclopaedia of 

Law 

English Admiralty 
English Crown Cases 
English Chancery 
English Ecclesiastical Reports 
English Ecclesiastical Reports 
English Exchequer Reports 
English LaV & Equity 
English Reports, Full Reprint 
English Railway and Canfel Cases 
Law Reports, English and Irish Appeal 



Euer 
Exch. - 
Exch.Cas. 



Equity Cases Abridged (Eng.) 
Equity Reports (Eng.) 
English Ruling Cases 
Espinasse's Nisi Prius (Eng.) 
Euer (Eng.) 
Exchequer (Eng.) 
Exchequer Oases (Sc.) 



Ex.D. 
Eyre. 



Falc. 

Falc.&F. 

Far. 

F.Cas.No. 

F.(CtSess.) 

F. 

F.f2d) 

F.R.D. 

F.Supp. 

Ferg.Cons. 

F.&F. 

Fish.Pat.Cas. 

Fish.Pat.R. 

Fish.PmeCas. 

Fitzg. 

Fitzh. 

Fitzh.N.Br. 

Fla, 

Flipp. 

F1.&K. 

Fonb.Eq. 

Fonbl. 

Fonbl.R. 

Forbes 

Forr. 

Forrester 

Fortesc. 

Fost 

Fost. 

Fost&Fin. 

FountDec, 

Fox 

Fox & S. 

Freem. 

Freem. 

Frecm.K.B. 



Ga. 

Ga.App. 

Ga.Dec. 

Gale 

Gal. 

G.Ooop. 

G.&D. 

GehL&M. 

Gibb.Surr. 

Giffard 

Giff.&H. 

Gil. 

Gilb. 

Gilb.Cas. 

Gilb.C.P. 

Gilb.Exch. 

GUI 

Gffl&T. 

Gilm. 

Gilm.&Falc. 

Gilp. 

Glasc. 

Gljm&J. 

Godb. 

Godo. 

Goeb. 

Gosf. 

Gouldsb. 

Gow 

Gow N.P. 

Grant 

Srant Oh. 

Grant Err.&App. 

Gratt 

Gray 



Law Reports Exchequer Division 

(Eng.) 
Eyre's Reports (Eng.) 

F 

Falconer's Court of Sessions (Sc.) 

Falconer & Fitzherbert (Eng.) 

Farresley (Eng.) 

Federal Cases (U.S.) 

Fraser's Court of Sessions Cases (Sc.) 

Federal Reporter (U.S.) 

Federal Reporter Second Series 

Federal Rules Decisions 

Federal Supplement 

Ferguson's Consistory (Eng.) 

Foster & Finlason (Eng.) 

Fisher's Patent Cases (U.S.) 

Fisher's Patent Reports (U.S.) 

Fisher's Prize Cases (U.S.) 

Fitzgfbbon (Eng.) 

Fitzherbert's Abridgment (Eng.) 

Fitzherberf s Natura Brevium . (Eng.) 

Florida 

Flippin (U.S.) 

Flanagan & Kelly (Ir.) 

Fonblanque's Equity (Eng.) 

Fonblanque (Eng.) 

Fonblanque's English Cases 

Forbes (Eng.) 

Forrest (Eng.) 

Forrester's Cases (Eng.) 

Fortescue (Eng.) 

Foster (Eng.) 

Foster (N.H.) 

Foster & Finlason (Eng.) 

FountainhalTs Decisions (Sc.) 

Fox Reports (Eng.) 

Fox & Smith (Ir.) 

Freeman's Chancery (Eng.) 

Freeman's Chancery (Miss.) 

Freeman's King's Bench (Eng.) 

G 

Georgia 

Georgia Appeals 

Georgia Decisions 

Gale (Eng.) 

Gallison (U.S.) 

G. Cooper (Eng.) 

Gale & Davidson (Eng.) 

Geldart & Maddock (Eng ~ 

Gibbon's Surrogate (N.3 

Giffard (Eng.) 

Giffard and Hemming (Eng.) 

Gilfillan's Edition (Minu.) 

Gilbert's (Eng.) 

Gilbert's Cases (Eng.) 

Gilbert's Common Pleas (Eng.) 

Gilbert's Exchequer (Eng.) 

Gill (Md.) 

GUI & Johnson (Md.) 

Gilmer (Va.) 

Gilmour & Falconer (Sc.) 

Gilpin (U.S.) 

Glascock (Ir.) 

Glyn & Jameson (Eng,) 

Godbolt (Eng.) 

Godolphin's Abridgment of Ecclcsias* 

Goebel's Probate Court Oases 
Gosford (Eng.) 
Gouldsborough (Eng.) 
Gow (Eng.)' 

Gow's English Nisi Prius Cases 
Grant's Cases (Pa.) 
Grant's Chancery (U.O.) 
Grant's Error & Appeal (U.C.) 
Grattan (Va.) 
Gray (Mass.) 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



Green Or. 

Greene 

GwilLT.Cas. 



Hadd. 

Hagg.Adm. 

Hagg.Cons. 

Hagg.EccL 

Hailes Bee. 

Hale J 

Hale Ecc. 

Hale P.C. 

Hall 

Hall&T. 

Halsbury L.Eng. 

Handy 

Han.(NJB.) 

Hard. 

Hardres 

Hare 

Harp.Eq. 

Harr. 

Harr.fDeL) 

Harr. (Mich.), 

Harr.&G. 

Harr.Oh. 

Harr.&H. 

Harr.&J. 

Harr.&M. 

Harr.&B. 

Harr.&W. 

Hask. . 

HaviL 

Hawaii 

HawaiLFed. 

Hawaiian Hep. 

Hawk.P.O. 

Hay.Exch. 

Hayes 

Hayes&J. 

Hay&M. 

Hayw.- 



^ 
Hayw.&H. 

Haz.Beg. 

H.B1. 

H.&0. 

Head 

Heisk. 

Hem.&M. 

Hempst 

Hen.&M. 

Het. 

Het.C.P. 

H.&H. 

HiU 

HiU S.C. 

Hill &Den. % 

Hill &Den. Supp. 



WIT. 

H.L.Cas. 

H.&N. 

Hob. 

Hodg.ESL 

Hocfees 

Uoffm. 

H-offm.Land Gas. 

Ho*. 

Holmes 

golt Adm.Oas. 
olt Bq. 
Holt K.B. 
Holt N.P. 
Home 
Hope Dec. 
Hopk. 
Hopk.Dec. 



Green's Criminal Law (Eng.) 

Greene (Iowa) 

Gwillim's Tithe Cases (Eng.) 



Hac 

Haggard's Admiralty (Eng.) 
Haggard's Consistory (Eng.) 
Haggard's Ecclesiastical (Bng.) 
Hailes' Decisions (Sc.) 
Hale's Common Law (Eng.) 
Hale's Ecclesiastical (Eng.) 
Hale's Pleas of the Crown (Eng.) 
Hall's Superior Court (N.Y.) 
Hall & TweUs (Eng.) 
Halsbury's Law of England 
Handy (Oh.) 

Hannay's Beports, New Brunswick 
Hardin (Ky.) 
Hardres (Eng.) 
Hare (Eng.) 
Harper (S.C.) 

Harrison's Chancery (Mich.) 
Harrington (DeL) 

Harrington's Michigan Chancery Be- 
ports 

Harris & Gill (Md.) 
Harrison's Chancery (Eng.) 
Harrison & Hodgins (U.C.) 
Harris & Johnson (Md.) 
Harris & McHenry (Md.) 
Harrison & Butherford (Eng.) 
Harrison & Wollaston (Eng.) 
HaskeU (U.S.) 
Haviland (PrJSdwJsL) 
Hawaiian 
Hawaiian Federal 
Hawaii Beports 

Hawkins* Pleas of the Crown (Eng.) 
Hayes Exchequer (Ir.) 
Hayes (Ir.) 
Hayes & Jones (Ir.) 
Hay & Marriott (Eng.) 
Haywood (N.C.) 

Haywood & Hazelton (U.S.) 

Hazard's Register (Pa.) 

Henry Blackstone (Eng.) 

Hurlstone & Coltman (Eng.) , 

Head (Tenn.) 

HeiskeU (Tenn.) 

Hemming & Miller (Eng.) 

Hempstead (U.S.) 

Henning & Munf ord (Va.) 

Hetley (Eng.) 

Hetley'e Common Pleas (Eng.) . 

Horn & Hurlstone (Eng.) 

HiU (N.Y.) 

HiU (S.C.) 

Hill & Denio (N.Y.) 

Lalor's Supplement to HOI & Denio's 

(N.Y.) 

Hilton (N.Y.) 
HUaryTerm (Eng.) f ^ 
House of Lords Cases (Eng.) 
Hurlstone & Norman (Eng.) 
Hobart (Eng.) 
Hodgins' Election (U.C.) 
Hodges (Eng.) ,- T _ v 
Hoffman's Chancery (N.Y.) 
Hoffman's Land Cases (U.S.) 
Hogan (Ir.) 

Holmes (U.S.) . , _. 
Holt's English Admiralty Cases 

Holt's King's Bench (Eng.) 
Holf s Nisi Prius (Eng.) 
Home (Sa\ . . 

Hope's Decisions (Sc.) 
Hopkins' Chancery (N.Y.) 
Hopkins' Decisions (Pa.) 



Hopw.&C. Hopwood & Coltman (Eng.) 

Hopw.&P. Hopwood & Philbrick (Eng.) 

Hosea Hosea (Ohio) 

Houst. Houston (DeL) 

Houst.Cr. Houston's Criminal Cases (DeL) 

How. Howard (U.S.) 

How. (Miss.) Howard (Miss.) 

HowA.Cas. Howard's Appeal Cases (N.Y.) 

How.N.P. HoweU's Nisi Prius (Mich.) 

How.Pr. Howard's Practice (N.Y.) 

How.Pr.N.& . Howard's Practice New Series (N.Y.) 

How.St.Tr. HoweU's State Trials (Eng.) 

Hud.&B. Hudson & Brooke (Ir.) 

Hughes Hughes (Ky.) 

Hughes Hughes (U.S.) 

Hume Hume's Decisions (Sc.) 

Humphr. Humphreys (Tenn.) 

Hun Hun (N1Y.) 

Hurl.&Gord. Hurlstoue & Gordon (Eng.) 

HurL&W. Hurlstone & Walmsley (Eng.) 

Hutt. Hutton (Eng.) 



Idaho Idaho 

Iddings DJU). Iddings Dayton Term Beports 

HI. Illinois 

IU.App. Illinois Appellate Court 

El.Cfr. lUinois Circuit Court 

Ind. Indiana 

Ind.App. Indiana AppeUate Court 

Ind.T. Indian Territory 

Jns.L.J. Insurance Law Journal 

Int.Com.Commn. Interstate Commerce Commission 

Int.ComJElep. Interstate Commerce Beports 

Int.Rev.Rec. Internal Revenue Record 

Iowa Iowa 

[1891] Ir. Law Beports [1891] Irish 

Ir.Ch. Irish Chancery 

Ir.C.L. Irish Common Law 

Ir.EccL Irish Ecclesiastical Beports 

Ired. IredeU (N.C.) 

Ir.Eq. Irish Equily 

Ir.LawBep. Irish Law Reports 

IrXaw &Eq. Irish Law and Equity Beports 

Ir.B.1894. Irish Law Beports for year 1894 

Ir.R.Clx Irish Beports Common Law 

Ir.R.Eq. Irish Beports Equity 

Irv.Just. Irvine's Justiciary Cases (Eng.) 



Jae. Jacob (Eng.) 

Jac.&W. Jacob & Walker (Bng.) 

J.Bridgm. John Bridgman (Eng.) 

J.&G. Jones & Carey (Ir.) 

Jebb &B. Jebb & Bourke (Ir.) 

Jebb O.C. Jebb's Crown Cases (Ir.) 

Jebb&S. Jebb & Symes (Ir.) 

Jeff. Jefferson (Va.) 

Jenk. Jenkins (Eng.) 

J.J.Marsh, J. J. ^rshaU (%) 

J.&L. Jones & La Touche (Eng.) 

Johns. Johnson (Eng.) 

Johns. Johnson (N.Y.) 

Johns.Cas. Johnson's Cases (N.Y.) 

Johns.0h. Johnsonfs Chancery (N.Y.) * 

Johns.V.C. Johnson's English Vice-ChanceUors 

(Eng.) 

Johns.&H. Johnson & Hemming (Eng.) 

Jones Exch. Jones Exchequer (Ir.) 

Jones T. Sir Thomas Jones' English King's 

Bench Beports 

Jones W. Sir William Jones' English Kong's 

Bench Beports 

Jones&Spen. Jones & Spencer (N.Y.) 

Jcmrn.Jur. Journal of Jurisprudence (Pa.) 

JP. Justice of Peace (Eng.) 

Jur. Jurist <Eng.) m 

Jur.N.S. Jurist New Series (Eng.) 

JustLJEL Justices' Law Reporter (Pa.) 



XIT 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 





K 


Leigh &0. 
Leon. 


Kames Dec. 
Kames Eluckt 


Kames' Decisions (Sc.) 
Kames' Elucidation (Sc.) 


Lev. 
Lew.C.C. 


Kames Rem.Dee. 


Kames' Remarkable Decisions (Sc.) 


T^? 


Kames SeLDec. 
Kan. 


Kames' Select Decisions (Sc.) 
Kansas 


Liberian L. 

T H-4- 


Kan.Appv 


Kansas Appeals 


JLtltt. 

Jjitt. 


Kay 
Kay&J. 

[1917JK.B, 


Kay (Eng.) 
Kay & Johnson (Eng.) 
Law Reports [1917] King's Bench 


Litt.Sel.Cas, 
L.JAdm. 


Keane &Gr. 


(Eng.) 
Keane & Grant (Eng.) 


L.J.Bankr. 


Keb. 


Keble (Eng.) 


L.J.Ch. 


Keen 


Keen (Eng.) 




Keilw. 
Kel.C.C. 


Keilway (Eng.) 
Kelvng's Crown Cases (Eng.) 


L.J.Ch.O.S. 


Kelly 
Kelyng, J. 


Kelly (Ga.) 
Kelyng's English Crown Cases 


LJ.C.P. 


Kelynge, W 


Kelynge's Chancery (Eng.) 


T TP PO S 


Koyes 


Keyes (N.Y.) 


ij.u . v.Jr.\jO< 


Keyl. 
K.&G. 


Keilwey (Eng.) 
Keane & Grant (Eng.) 


L.J.EccL 


Kilk. 


Kilkerran's Decisions (Sc.) 


T, T TfJ'e/h 


Kirby 


Kirby (Conn.) 


JLf.w .JKAl.ll. 


Knapp 
Knajjp&O. 


Knapp (Eng.) 
Knapp & Ombler (Eng.) 


L.J.Exch.O.S. 


Kn.&Moo. 


Knapp & Moore (Eng.) 


L.J.K.B. 


Knox 


Knox (N.S.Wales) 




Kiiox&F. 
Kiiip 


Knox & Fitzhardinge (JXT-S. Wales) 
Kulp (Pa.) 


L.J.K.B.O.S. 


Ky. 


Kentucky 


L.J.H.O. 


Ky.Dea 


Kentucky Decisions 




Ky.L. 
ICy.Op. 


Kentucky Law Reporter 
Kentucky Opinions 


L.J.M.C.O.S. 






L.J.P.C. 




L 


L.J.P.D.&Adnu 






L.J.P.&M. 


La. 


Louisiana 




La.App. 
La.A. (Orleans) 


Louisiana Court of Appeals 
Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans 


L.J.Q.B. 


T^ Arm. 


Louisiana Annual 


L.J.Hop. 


Lab. 


Labatf s District Court (Cal.) 




Lack.Jur. 


Lackawanna Jurist (Pa.) 


iji &(},t.y. 


Lack.Leg.N. 


Lackawanna Legal News (Pa.) 


U.&W. 


Lack.Leg.Ree. 


Lackawanna Legal Record (Pa.) 


L.&M. 


Lalor 


Lalor's Supplement to Hill & Denio 


L.M.iV^P. 




(N.Y.) 


IJOC.GOV. 


Lanc.Bar 


Lancaster Bar (Pa.) 


I^olTt 


Lanc.L.Rev. 


Lancaster Law Review (Pa.) 


Longf.&T. 


Land Dec. 


Land Decisions (U.S.) 


Low.Cttn.Seignu 


Lane 
Lans. 


Lane (Eng.) 
Lansing (N.Y.) 


Lowell 
L.R. 


Lans.Ch. 


Lansing's Chancery Decisions (N.Y.) 


L.R.A. 


Latch 


Latch (Eng.) 


L.R.A.1915A. 


Law Rep.N.8. 


Law Reports New Series (N.Y.) 


L.R.App.Cas. 


L.O. 


Lower Canada 




L.&C. 


Leigh & Cave (Eng.) 


L.R.A.&E. 


L.C.Jur. 


Lower Canada Jurist 




L.C.L.J. 


Lower Canada Law Journal 


L.R.A.N.S. 


L.C.Rep.S.QtL 


Lower Canada Reports Seignorial 






Questions 


L.R.C.C. 


L.D. 


Law Dictionary 


L.R.Ch. 


Ld.Ken. 


Lord Kenyon (Eng.) 




Ld.Raym. 


Lord Raymond (Eng.) 


L.R.C.P. 


Lea 


Lea (Tenn.) 




Leach 0.0. 
LJEd. 


Leach's Crown Cases (Eng.) 
Lawyers' Edition United States 


L.R.Eq. 
L.R.Exch. 




Supreme Court 


L.R.H.JU 


Lee EccL 


Lee's Ecclesiastical (Eng.) 




Lee tHardw. 
Lef.Dec. 


Lee temp. Hardwicke (Eng.) 
Lefevre's Parliamentary Decisions 


L.R.H.L.SC. 


Leg.Chron. 


(Eng.) 
Legal Chronicle (Pa.) 


L.R.Indian App. 
L.R.Ir. 


Leg.Gaz. 


Legal Gazette (Pa.V 


L.R.P.O. 


Leg.&InsJR. 
LegJnt 
Leg.Op. 
Leg.Rec. 


Legal & Insurance Reporter (Pa.) 
Legal Intelligencer (Pa.) 
Legal Opinions (Pa.) 
Legal Record (Pa.) 


L.R.P.&D, 
L.R.Q.B. 


Lehigh CO.LJ. 


Lehigh County Law Journal (Pa.) 


j.T. 


Lehigh VaLLJEL 


Lehigh Valley Law Exporter (Pa.) 
Leigh (Va.) 


iT.ols! 



Leigh & Cave's English Crown Cases 

Leonard (Eng.) 

Levinz (Eng.) 

Lewin's Crown Cases (Eng.) 

Ley (Eng.) 

Law Glossary 

Liberian Law 

Littell (Ky.) 

Littleton (Eng.) 

Littell's Select Cases (Ky,) 

Law Journal Admiralty New Series 



Law Journal Bankruptcy New Series 

(Eng.) 
Law Journal Chancery New Series 



(Eng.) 
Law Journal 



Old Series 



Chancery 

(Eng.) 
Law Journal Common Pleas New 

Series (Eng.) 
Law Journal Common Picas Old 

Series (Eng.) 
Law Journal JEcclesiastical New Series 



Law Journal Exchequer New Scries 

(Bng.) 
Law Journal Exchequer Old Series 

(Eng.) 
Law Journal King's Bench New Series 

(Eng.) 
Law Journal King's Bench Old Series 

(Eng.) 
Law Journal Magistrate Cases New 

Series (Eng.) 
Law Journal Magistrate Cases Old 

Series (Eng.) 
Law Journal Privy Council New Series 

(Eng.) 
Law Journal Probate Divorce & Ad- 

miralty New Series (Jdng.) 
Law Journal Probate & Matrimonial 

New Series (Eng.) 
Law Journal Queen's Bench New 

Series (Eng.) 

Law Journal Reports (Eng.) 
Llo3 r d & Goold temp. Plunket (Ir.) 
Lloyd & Goold temp. Sugden (Ir.) 
Lloyd & Welsby (Eng.) 
Lowndes & Maxwell (Eng.) 
Lowndes, Maxwell & Pollack (Eng.) 
Local Government (Eng.) 
Loffit (Eng.) 

Longfield & Townsend (Ir.) 
Lower Canada Seignorial Reports 
Lowell (U.S.) 
Law Reports (U.S.) 
Lawyers' Reports Annotated 
Lawyers' Reports Annotated 1015A 
English Law Reports, Appeal Cases 

Law Reports Admiralty & Ecclesias- 
tical (Ens.) 
Lawyers' Reports Annotated New 

Series 

Law Reports Crown Cases (Hng.) 
Law Reports Chancery Appeal Cases 

(Eng.) 
Law Reports Common Pleas Cases 

(Eng.) 

Law Reports Equity Casos (Eng.) 
Law Reports Exchequer Cases "(Hug.) 
Law Reports House of Lords (English 

& Irish Appeal Cases) 
Law Reports House of Lords (Scotch 

Appeal Cases) 

Law Reports Indian Appeals (Eng.) 
Law Reports Irish 
Law Reports Privy Council (Eng.) 
Law Reports Probate & Divorce 

(Eng.) 
Law Reports Queen's Bench Oases 

(Eng.) 

Law Times (Pa.) 
Law Times New Series (Pa.) 
Law Times, Old Series (Eng.) 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



xni 



L.T.Rep.N.S. Law Times Reports New Series 

(Bng.) 

Lush. Lushington's Admiralty (Eng.) 

Lutw. Lutwyche (Bng.) 

Lutw.Reg.Oas. Lutwyche's Registration Oases (Eng.) 

Luz.Leg.Obs. Luzerne Legal Observer (Pa.) 

Luz.Leg.Reg. Luzerne Legal Register (Pa.) 

LyndJProv. Lyndwood's Provinciates 

M 

MacAPatOas. MacArthur's Patent Cases (D.O.) 

MacArth. MacArthur's District of Columbia Re- 
ports 

MacAr.&M. MacArthur & Mackey's District of Co- 
lumbia Reports 

Maccl. Macclesfield (Bng.) 

MacFarL MacFarlane (Sc.) 

Mackey Mackey's Reports, District of Colum- 
bia 

MacL&R. Maclean & Robinson (Bng.) 

Macn.&G. Macnaghten & Gordon (Eng.) 

Macph. Macpherson (Sc.) 

Macph.S.&L, Macpherson, Shirreff & Lee (Sc.) 

Macq. Macqueen's Scotch Appeal Cases 

Madd. Haddock (Eng.) 

Madd.Ch.Pt. Maddock's Chancery Practice (Eng.) 

Malloy Malloy (Ir.) 

Man. Manitoba Law 

Man.El.Cas. Manning's Election Cases (Eng.) 

Man.Exch.Pr. Manning's Exchequer Practice (Eng.) 

Man.Gr.&S. Manning, Granger, & Scott (Eng.) 

ManX.J. Manitoba Law Journal 

Man.&Ry. Manning & Ryland (Eng.) 

Man.&Ry.Mag. Manning & Ryland's Magistrates' Gas- 
Cas. es (Eng.) 

Man.&S. Manning & Scott (Bng.) 

Mann.Unrep.Oas. Manning's Unreported Cases (La.) 

Manson Manson (Bng.) 

Man.tWood Manitoba temp. Wood 

March March (Bng.) 

Mar.Prov. Maritime Province Reports (Can.) 

Mars.Adm. Marsden's Admiralty (Bng.) 

Marsh. Marshall (Bng.) 

MarshJ.J. J. J. Marshall (Ky.) 

Mart Martin Old Series (La.) 

Mart(N.S.) Martin, New Series (La.) 

Mart Martin (N.C.) 

Marv. Marvel (Deli 

MartN.S. Martin New Series (La.) 

Mart&Y. Martin & Yerger (Tenn.) 

Mason Mason (U.S.) 

Mass. Massachusetts 

Maule &S. Maule & Selwyn (Bng.) 
Maynard (Eng.) 

McAllister (U.S.) 

McO, McCahon (Kan.) 

McOielL McClelland (Eng.) 

McOlelL&Y. McClelland & Younge (Eng.) 

McCord, McOord (S.C.) 

McCrary McCrary (U.S.) 

McG. McGloin(La.) 

McLean McLean (U.S.) 

McMuL McMullan (S.O.) 

Md. Maryland 

Md.Cn. Maryland Chancery 

Me. Maine 

Mees.&Ros. Meeson & Boscpe Wng.) 

Mees.&W. Meeson & Welsby (Eng.) 

Meg. Megone (Eng.) 

Meigs Meigs (Tenn.) 

Menzies Cape 
Good Hope 

Meriv. 

Mete. 

Mete. 

M.&G. 

M.&EL 

Mich. 

Mich.NJP. 

Mich.T. 

Miles 

Mill. Const 



Menzies Cape of Good Hope 

Merivale (Bng.) 

Metcalf (Mass.) 

Metcalfe (Ky.) 

Manning & Granger (Bng.) 

Murphy & Hurlstone (Eng,) 

Michigan 

Michigan Nisi Prius 

Michaelmas Term (Bng.) 

Miles (Pa.) 

Mill's Constitutional (S.O.) 



Mill.Dec. Miller's Decisions (U.S.) 

Mffls Mills (N.Y.) 

Milw. Milward (Ir.) 

Minn. Minnesota 

Minor Minor (Ala.) 

Misc. Miscellaneous (N.Y.) 

Miss. Mississippi 

Miss.Dec. Mississippi Decisions 

Miss.St.Cas. Mississippi State Cases 

M.&M. Moody & Malkin (Bng.) 

Mo. Missouri 

Mo.App. Missouri Appeals 

Moak Moak (Eng.) 

Mo.A.R. Missouri Appeals Reporter 

Mod. Modern (Bng.) 

Mod.CasX.&Eq. Modern Cases at Law and Equity 
(Bng.) 

Molloy Molloy (Ir.) 

Mon. Monaghan (Pa.) 

Mont Montana 

Mont Montagu (Bng.) 

Mont.Bank.Rep. Montagu's English Bankruptcy Re- 
ports 

Mont.L.R. Montreal Law Reports (Can.) 

Mont&A. Montagu & Ayrton (Bng.) 

Mont&B. Montagu & Bligh (Bng.) 

Mont&O. Montagu & Chitty (Bng.) 

Mont.D.&DeG. Montagu, Deacon & De Gex (Bug.) 

Montg.Co, Montgomery County Law Reporter 
(Pa.) 

Mont.&3iL Montagu & McArthur (Bng.) 

Montr.Oond.Rep. Montreal Condensed Reports 

Montr.Leg.N. Montreal Legal News 

Montr.QS. Montreal Law Reports Queen's Bench 

Montr.Super. Montreal Law Reports Superior Court 

Moody C.C. Moody's Crown Gases (Eng.) 

Moore C.P. Moore's Common Pleas (Eng.) 

Moore Indian App.Moore's Indian Appeals (Eng.) 
Moore's King's Bench (Eng.) 



Moore K.B. 
Moore P.O. 

Moore P.C.N.S. Moore's Privy Council New Series- 



Moore's Privy Council Old Series 



Moore&S. 

Moore&W. 

Mor.Min.Rep. 

Morr. 

Morr.Bankr.Oas. 

Morr.StOas. 

Mosely 

M.&P. 

M.&R. 

M.&Rob. 

M.&S. 

Mun.Corp.Cas. 

Munf. 

Murph. 

Murr. 

M.&W. 

Myl.&O. 

Myl.&K. 

MyrJProb, 



(Bng.) 
Moore & Scott (Bng.) 
Moore & Walker (Tei.) 
Morrison's Mining Reports 
Morris (Iowa) 

MorrelTs Bankruptcy Cases (Bng.) 
Morns' State Cases (Miss.) 
Mosely (Bng.) 
Moore & Payne (Bng.) 
Manning & Ryland (Bng.) 
Moody & Robinson (Eng.) 
Maule & Selwyn (Bng.) 
Municipal Corporation Cases 
Munford (VaJ 
Murphey (N.C.) 
Murray (Sc.) 
Meeson & Welsby (Bng.) 
Mylne & Craig iBng.) 



Nat.Bankr.Reg. 

Nat.Corp.Rep. 

NatL-Rep. 

N.B. 

N.BenL 

NJBJBo. 

N.O. 

N.Ohipm. 

NGConf 

N TJtek 



N.B. (2d) 

Neb. 

Neb.(Uno&) 

Nels. 

NdLkbr. 



Mylne & Keen (Bng.) 
Myrick's Probate (CaL) 

N 

National Bankruptcy Register (U.S.) 
National Corporation Reporter 
National Law Reporter 
New Brunswick 
New Benloe (Eng.) 
New Brunswick Equity 
North Carolina 
N. Chipman (Vt) 
North Carolina Conference 
North Carolina Term Reports 
North Dakota 

North Eastern Reporter . 

North Eastern Reporter Second Series 
Nebraska 

Nebraska Unofficial 
Nelson (Eng.) , ^ 

Kelson's Abridgment of the Common 
Law 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



Nev. , Nevada 

NewbAdm. Newberry's Admiralty (U.S.) 

NewfoundL Newfoundland 

Newf.Sel.Cas. Newfoundland Select Cases 

New Eep. New Reports in all Courts (Bng.) 

New Sess.Cas. New Session Cases (Eng.) 

New ZeaLL. New Zealand Law 

N.H. New Hampshire 

N.J.Eq. New Jersey Equity 

N.J.Law New Jersey Law 

N.J.L.J. New Jersey Law Journal 

N.J.Misc. New Jersey Miscellaneous 

N.M. New Mexico 

N.&M. Nevile & Manning (Eng.) 

N.&Macn. Neville & Macnamara (Eng.) 

Nolan Nolan (Eng.) 

North. Northington (Eng.) 

North.Go. Northampton County Reporter (Pa.) 

Northum. Northumberland County Legal News 

(Pa.) 
Northumb.Co.Leg. Northumberland County Legal News 



N. 

Notes of Cas. 
Nott & McC. 
Noy 
N.&P. 
N.S. 

N.S.Dec. 
N.S.Wales 
N.S.Wales L. 



(Pa.) 

Notes of Cases (Eng. 

Nott & McCord (S.C.) 

Noy (Eng.) 

Nevile & Perry (Eng.) 

Nova Scotia 

Nova Scotia Decisions 

New South Wales 

.. . New South Wales Law 

N.S.Wales L.R.Eq.New South Wales Law Reports Eq- 

uity 

N.W. North Western Reporter 

N.Y. New York 

N.Y.Ann.Cas. New York Annotated Cases 
N.Y.City Ct. New York City Court 

N.Y.Oity Ct.Suppl.New York City Court Supplement 
N.Y.Civ.Proc. New York Civil Procedure 
N.Y.Civ.Pr.Rep. New York Civil Procedure Reports 

N.S. 6 eP r S 'New York Code Reports, New Series 
N.Y.Cr. New York Criminal 

N.YXeg.Obs. New York Legal Observer 
N.Y.L.Rec. New York Law Record t 

N.Y.Month.L.Bul. New York Monthly Law Bulletin 



N.Y.S. 
N.Y.St. 
N.Y.Super. 
N.Y.Wkly.Dig. 



O.Ben. 
O.Bridgm. 
Off.Gaz. 
Ohio 

Ohio App. 
Ohio Cir.Ct. 
Ohio Cir.Ct.N.S. 
Ohio Cir.Dec. 
Ohio Dec. 

(Reprint) 
Ohio FJDec. 
Ohio L.J. 
OhioN.P. 
Ohio N.P.N.S. 
Ohio O. 
Ohio Prob. 
Ohio S.&CJP, 

Ohio St 

OkL 

OkLCr. 

Olcott 

Oliv.B.&Ii. 

0'M.H. 

Ont. 

OntA. 

OntELCaS. 

OntL. 

OntLJ. 

OntL.J.N.S. 

OntPr. 



New York Supplement 
New York State Reporter 
New York Superior Court 
New York Weekly Digest 

/ 

o 

Old Benloe (Eng.) 

Orlando Bridginan (Eng.) 

Official Gazette 

Ohio 

Ohio Court of Appeals 

Ohio Circuit Court 

Ohio Circuit Court New Series 

Ohio Circuit Decisions 

Ohio Decisions (Reprint) 
Ohio Federal Decisions 
Ohio Law Journal 
Ohio Nisi Prius 
Ohio Nisi Prius New Series 
Ohio Opinions 
Ohio Probate 

Ohio Superior & Common Pleas Deci- 
sions 

Ohio State 
Oklahoma 
Oklahoma Criminal 
Olcott (U.S.) 

Oliver, Beavan & Lefroy (Eng.) 
O'Malley & Hardcastle (Ir.) 
Ontario 

Ontario Appeals 
Ontario Election Cases 
Ontario Law 
Ontario Law Journal 
Ontario Law Journal New Series 
Ontario Practice 



Ont.W.N. 


Ontario Weekly Notes 


OntW.R. 


Ontario Weekly Reporter 


Op.Atty.-Gen. 


Opinions of Attorneys-General (U.S.) 


Op.Sol.Dept 
Labor 


Opinions of the Solicitor for the De- 
partment of Labor dealing with 




Workmen's Compensation 


Or. 


Oregon 


Orleans App. 


Orleans Appeals (La.) 


Overt 


Over ton (Tenn.) 


Owen 


Owen (Eng.) 




P 


p. 


Pacific Reporter 


P.(2d) 


Pacific Reporter Second Series 


[1S91]P. 


Law Reports [1891] Probate (Eng.) 


Pa. 


Pennsylvania State 


Pa.Cas. 


Pennsylvania Supreme Court Cases 




(Sadler) 


Pa.Co. 


Pennsylvania County Court 


Pa.C.PL 


Common Pleas (Pa.) 


Pa.Dist 


Pennsylvania District 


Pa.Dist&Co. 
Paige 


Pennsylvania District and County 
Paige's Chancery (N.Y.) 


Paine 


Paine (U.S.) 


Pa.L.J. 


Pennsylvania Law Journal 


Pa.L.Rec. 
Pa.L.J.R. 


Pennsylvania Law Record 
Clark's Pennsylvania Law Journal 




Reports 


Palm. 


Palmer (Eng.) 


Park. 
Park. Or. 


Parker (Eng.) 
Parker's Criminal (N.Y.) 


Pnrk.Exch, 


Parker's Exchequer (Kng.) 


Park.Ins. 


Parker's Insurance (Eng.) 


Pars.Eq.Oas. 


Parsons' Equity Cases (Pa.) 


Pa.Super. 
Paton App.Cas. 


Pennsylvania Superior Court 
Paton's Appeal Cases (fcte.) 


Patrick El.Cas. 


Patrick's Election Cases (Can.) 


Patt&EL 


Patton & Heath (Va.) 


P.D. 


Law Reports Probate Division (EJng.) 


P.&D. 
Peake N.P. 


Perry & Davison (Eng.) 
Peake's Nisi Prius (Eng.) 


Pearce C.C. 


Pearce's Reports in Dearsly's (Bng.) 


Pearson 


Pearson (Pa.) 


Peck 


Peck (Tenn.) 


Peck,E1.0as. 


Peckwell's Election Cases (Eng.) 


Pennew. 


Pennewill (Del.) 


Ponuyp. 


Pennypackcr (Pa.) 


Penr.&W. 


Penrose & Watts (Pa.) 


Perry & BJDU 


Perry & Knapp Election Cases (Eng.) 


Pet 
PetAdm. 


Peters (U.S.) 
Peters' Admiralty (U.S.) 


PetO.C. 


Peters 1 Circuit Court (U.S.) 


Phil. 


Phillips (Eng.) . 


Phil. 


Phillip (N.C.) 


Phila. 


Philadelphia (Pa.) 


Philippine 
Phillim. 


Philippine 
Phillimore Ecclesiastical (Eng.) 


Pick. 


Pickering (Mass.) 


Pig.&R. 


Pigott & Rod well (Eng.) 


Pig.Rec. 


Pigolt's Recoveries (Eng.) 


Pinn. 


Pinney (Wis.) 


Pittsb. 


Pittsburgh (Pa.) 


Pittsb.Leg.J. 

Pittsb.Leg.J.N.S. 


Pittsburgh Legal Journal (Pa.) 
Pittsburgh Legal Journal New Scries 




(Pa.) 


P.&K. 


Perry & Knapp (Eng.) 


Plowd. 


Plowden (Eng.) 


Pollexf. 
Poph, 


Pollexfen (Eng.) 
Popham (Eng.) 


Port 


Porter (Ala.) 


Posey 


Posey's Un reported Cnses (Tex.) 


Puerto Rico 


Puerto Rico 


Puerto Rico Fed. 


Puerto Rico Federal 


Pow.Surr. 


Powers' Surrogate (N.Y.) 


P.R.&D.ELCas. 


Power, Rodwell & Dew's Election 




Cases (Eng.) 


Prec.Oh. 


Precedents in Chancery (Eng.) 


Pr.Edw.IsL 


Prince Edward Island 


Price 


Price (Bng.) 


Price Pr.Oas. 


Price's Practice Cases (Eng.) 


Prid.&0. 


Pridcaux & Cole (Eng.) 


Prob. [1917] 


Law Reports, Probate Division (Eng.) 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



Prob.Rep. 

Pr.Rep. 

P.Wms. 

P.UJR. 

Pyke 



Q.B. 

[1S91]Q.B> 
Q.BJX 

Queensl.J.P. 

Queensl.L. 

Q u e ensLLJT* 

Que.L. 

Que.Pr. 

Que.Q.B. 

Que.Rev.Jud. 
Que.Super. 

Quincy 



Rand.' 
Rap.Jud.Q.C.S. 

Rawle 
R.C.L. 
R.&Can.Cas. 
R.&Can.Tr.Cas. 

Redf. 
Redf.&B. 

Redf.R.Cas. 

Redf.Surr. 

Reeve EngJj. 

Reports 

Reprint 

Rep.kFinch 

Rep.t.Hard. 

Rep.tHolt 
Res.&Eq.Judgm. 

Rev.Crit. 

Rev.de Jur. 

Rev.de Legis. 

Rev.Leg. 

Rev.Leg.N.S. 

Rev.Rep. 

R.I. 

Rice 

Rich. 

Rich.OP. 

Ridg. 

Ridg.Ap. 

Ridg.L.&S. 

Ridg.P.C. 

Ridg.t.Hardw. 

Riley 

R.&M. 

RJMCharlt 

Rob. 

Rob. 

Robb PatCas. 

Robert.App.Cas. 

Rob.Eccl. 

Robin.App.Cas. 

Rob.Wm.Adm. 

Rolle 

Rolle Abr. 

Rolls Ct.Rep. 

Rom.Cas. 

Root 

49 C.J.S. b 



Probate Reports (Eng.) 
Practice Reports (Eng.) 
Peere-Williams (Eng.) 
Public Utilities Reports 
Pyke (Can.) 



Q 



Queen's Bench (Adolphus & Ellis New 



Series) (Eng.) 
Law Reports [1891] 



Queen's Bench 



Law Reports Queen's Bench Division 

(Eng.) 

Queensland Justice of the Peace 
Queensland Law 
Queensland Law Journal 
Quebec Law 
Quebec Practice 
Quebec Official Reports Queen's 

Bench 

Quebec Revised Judicial 
Quebec Official Reports Superior 

Court 
Quincy (Mass.) 

R 

Randolph (Va.) 

Rapport's Judiciaries de Quebec Cour 

Superieure 
Rawle (Pa.) 
Ruling Case Law 
Railway & Canal Cases (Eng.) 
Railway & Canal Traffic Cases (Eng.) 
Redfield's Surrogate (N.Y.) 
Redfield & Bigelow's Leading Cases 

(Eng.) 

Redfleld's Railway Cases (Eng.) 
Redfield's Surrogate (N.Y.) 
Reeve's English Law 
Reports (Eng.) 
English Reprint 
Cases temp. Finch (Eng.) 
Lee's Reports tempore Hardwicke 

(Eng.) 
Reports tempore Holt (English Cases 

of Settlement) 
Reserved & Equity Judgments (N.S. 

Wales) 

Revue Critique (Can.) 
Revue de Jurisprudence (Can.) 
Revue de Legislation (Can.) 
Revue Legale (Can.) . 
Revue Legale New Series (Can.) 
Revised Reports (Eng.) 
Rhode Island 
Rice (S.C.) 
Richardson (S.C.) 
Richardson's Practice Common Pleas 

(Eng.) 

Ridgeway's Reports tempore Hard- 
wicke (Eng.) 
Ridgeway's Appeal (Ir.) 
Ridgeway, Lapp & Schoale (Ir.) 
Ridgeway's Parliament Cases (Ir.) 
Ridgeway temp. Hardwicke (Eng.) 
Riley (S.C.) 
Ryan & Moody (Eng.) 
R. M. Charlton (Ga.) 
Robinson (La.) 

Robinson (Va.) 

Robb's Patent Cases (U.S.) 
Robertson's Appeal Cases (Sc.) 
Robertson's Ecclesiastical (Eng.) 
Robinson's Appeal Cases (Sc.) 
William Robinson's Admiralty (Eng.) 
Rolle (Eng.) 

Rolle's Abridgment (Eng.) 
Rolls' Court Reports 
Romilly's Notes of Cases (Eng.) 
Boot (Conn.) 



Rose 

Hoss Lead.Cas. 

R.&R. 

Russ. 

Russ.&C.Eq.Cas. 

Russ.Eq.Cas. 
Russ.&Geld. 
Russ.&M. 
Ry.&M. 



Salk. 

Sandf. 

Sandf.Ch. 

Sask.L. 

Saund. 

Saund.&C. 

Sau.&Sc. 

S.AustrJi. 

Sav. 

Sawy. 

Saxt. 

[1907] S.C. 

Scam. 

S.C.Eq. 

Seh.&Lef. 

[1907]S.C.(J.) 

Sc.Jur. 

S.C.L. 

Sc.L.Rep. 

Scot L.T. 

Scott 

Scott NJR. 

ScrJML\ 

Sc.Sess.Cas. 

S.Ct- 

S.D. 

S.E. 

Searle & Sm. 

Sel.Cas.ClL 

Seld. 

Selden 

Selw. 

Serg.&R. 

Sess.Cas. 

Shan. 

Shaw 

Shaw&D. 

Shaw Dec. 

Shaw, Dunl.&B. 

Shaw&M. 

Sheld. 

Shep.Abr. 

Sheph.Sel.Cas. 

Show. 

Show.P.0. 

Sid. 

SilvA. 

.Silv.Sup. 

Sim. 

Sim.N.S. 

Sim.&St. 

Skin. 

Smale&G. 

Smith 

Smith 

Smith&B. 

Smith K.B. 

Smith Lead.Cas. 

Smith Reg. 

Sm.&M. 

Sm.&M.Ch. 

Smythe 

Sneed 

So. 

SoLJ. 

Sp. 

Spinks 

Spinks 



Rose (Eng.) 

Ross' Leading Cases (Eng.) 

Russell & Ryan Crown Cases (Eng.) 

Russell (Eng.) ^ 

Russell's & Chesley's Equity Cases 

Russell's Equity Cases (N.S.) . 
Russell & Geldert, Nova Scotia 
Russell & Hylne (Eng.) 
Ryan & Moody (Eng.) 



Salkeld (Eng.) /WV v 

Sandford*s Supenor Court (N.Y.) 
Sandford's Chancery (N.Y.) 
Saskatchewan Law 
Saunders (Eng.) 
Saunders & Cole (Eng.) 
Sausse & Scully (Ir.) 
Soutjt Australia Law 
Savile (Eng.) 
Sawyer (U.S.) 
Saxton (N.J.) 
Sayer (Eng.) 
South Carolina 
Court of Session Cases (Sc.) 
Scammon (I1L) 
South Carolina Equity 
Schoales & Lefroy (Ir.) 
Court of Justiciary Cases (Sc.) 
Scottish Jurist 
South Carolina Law 
Scottish Law Reporter 
Scot Law Times 
Scott (Eng.) 

Scott's New Reports (Eng.) 
Scranton Law Times (Pa.) 
Scotch Court of Session Cases 
-Supreme Court Reporter (U.S.) 
South Dakota 
South Eastern Reporter 
Searle & Smith (Eng.) 
Select Cases in Chancery (Eng.) 
Selden's Notes (N.Y.) 
Selden (N.Y.) 
Selwyn's Nisi Prius (Eng.) 
Sergeant & Rawle (Pa.) 
Court of Session Cases (Eng.) 
Shannon (Tenn.) 
Shaw (Sc.) 
Shaw & Dunlop (Sc.) 
Shaw's Digest of Decisions (Sc.) 
Shaw, Dunlop & Bell (Sc.) 
Shaw & MacLean (Sc.) 
Sheldon (N.Y.) 
Sheppard s Abridgment 
Shepherd's Select Cases (Ala.) 
Shower (Eng.) 

Shower's Parliament Cases (Eng*) 
Siderfin (Eng.) 
Silvernail's Appeals (N.Y.) 
Silvernail's Supreme (N.Y.) 
Simons (Eng.) . 
Simons New Series (Eng.) 
Simons & Stuart (Eug.) 
Skinner (Eng.) 
Smale & Giffard (Eng.) 
Smith (Ind.) 
Smith (N.H.) 
Smith & Batty (Ir.) 
Smith's King's Bench (Eng.) 
Smith's Leading Cases (Eng.) 
Smith's Registration (Eng.) 
Smedes & Marshall (Hiss.) 
Smedes & Marshall Chancery (Miss.) 
Smythe (Ir.) 
Sneed (Tenn.) 
Southern Reporter 
Solicitor's Journal (Eng.) 
Speers (S.C.) 
Spinks Admiralty (Bng.) 
Spinks' Ecclesiastical and Admiralty 
(Eng.) 



XVI 

Spinks, P.O. 

Spottisw. 

Spottisw.Bq. 

Sprague 

Stair 

Stark. 

Stat. at L. 

Stew. 

Stew. 

Stew.&P. 

StocktVice-Adm. 

Story 

Str. 

Strob. 

Stuart Vice-Adm. 

Stu.M.&P. 

Style 

Sumn, 

Susq.Leg.Chron. 

S.W, 

S.W.(2d) 

Swab. 
Swab.&Tr. 
Swan 
Swanst 



TamL 

Taney 

Tapp. 

Taunt 

Taylor 

T.B.Mon. 

Tenn. 

Tenn.Appt 

Tenn.Gas. 

Tenn.Oh. 

Tenn.Ch.A. 

Tenn.Civ.A. 

TerrJU 

Tex. 

Tex,App. 

Tex.A.Giv.Gas. 

Tex.Giv.App. 

TexXJr. 

Tex.Suppl. 

Tex.Unrep.Cas. 

Thach.Cr. 

Thomps.&0. 

Thomps.Gas. 

Tinw. 

T.Jones 

TXJEfc. 

T.M.R. 

T.&M. 

Toth. 

T.R. 

TranscrA. 

T.Raym. 

Tread.0onst 

TreasDec. 

Tr.&H.Pr. 

Trint.T. 

Truem.Bq.Oas. 

Tuck.Sel,Oas. 

Tuck.Surr, 

T,U.P.Charlt 

Turn.&R. 

Tyler 

Tyrw, 

Tyrw.&CL 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



Splnks' Prize Cases (Eng.) 
Spottiswoode (Sc.) 
Spottiswoode's Equity (Sc.) 
Sprague (U.S.) 

Starkie Nisi Prius (Eng.) 
United States Statutes at Large 
Stewart (Ala.) 
Stewart's Reports (N.S.) 
Stewart & Porter (Ala.) 
Stockton's Vice-Admiralty (N.B.) 
Story (U.S.) 



Strange (Eng.) 

Strobhart (S.C.) 

Stuart's Vice-Admiralty (L.C.) 



Stuart, Milne & Peddie (Sc.) 



Style (Eng.) 
Sumner (U.S.) 
Susquehanna Legal ( 



Ter- 



.Cham. 

.OJP. 
U.C.E.&A. 
U.OJKJB. 



Sumner .. ^ . , ,~ v 
Susquehanna Legal Chronicle (Pa.) 
South Western Reporter 
South Western Reporter Second 

Series 

Swabey's Admiralty (Eng.) 
Swabey & Tristram (Eng.) 
Swan (Tenn.) 
Swanston (Eng.) 

T 

Tamlyn (Eng.) 

Taney (U.S.) 

Tappan (Oh.) 

Taunton (Eng.) 

Taylor (N.C.) 

T. B. Monroe (Ky.) 

Tennessee 

Tennessee Appeals 

Unreported Tennessee Cases 

Tennessee Chancery 

Tennessee Chancery Appeals 

Tennessee Civil Appeals 

Territories Law (Northwest 

ritories) 
Texas 

Texas Court of Appeals 
White & Wilson's Civil Cases (Tex.) 
Texas Civil Appeals 
Texas Criminal 
Texas Supplement 
Posoy's Unreported Cases (Tex.) 
Thachor's Criminal Cases (Mass.) 
Thompson & Cook (N.Y.) 
Thompson's Cases (Tenn.) 
Tinwald (Sc.) 
Thomas Jones (Eng. 
Times Law Reports ,. 
Trade Mark Reports 
Temple & Mew (Bng.) 
Tothill (Eng.) 
Term Reports (Dnrnford & Bast) 

(Bng.) 

Transcript Appeals (N.Y.) 
Thomas Raymond (Bng.) 
Treadway Constitutional (S.C.) 
Treasury Decisions (U.S.) 
Troubat & Haly's Practice (Pa.) 
Trinity Term (Bng.) 
Trueman's Equity Cases (N.B.) ^ 
Tucker's Select Cases (Newfoundland) 
Tucker's Surrogate (N.Y.) 
T. U. P. Charlton (Ga.) 
Turner & Russell (Eng.) 
Tyler JVt) 
Tyrwhitt (Bng.) 
Tyrwhitt & Granger (Bng.) 

u 

Upper Canada 

Upper Canada Chancery 

Upper Canada Chamber 

Upper Canada Common Pleas 

Upper Canada Error and Appeal 

Upper Canada King's Bench Reports 



U.C.Q.B. Upper Canada Queen's Bench 

U.C.Q.B.O.S. Upper Canada Queen's Bench 

Series 

U.S. United States 

U.S Aviation Bep. Aviation Reports (U.S.) 
U S.CLA. United States Code Annotated 

Utah Utah 



Va. Virginia 

Va.0as. Virginia Cases 

Va.Ch.Dec. Chaucory Decisions (Va.) 

Va.Dec. Virginia Decisions 
Van Ness Prize ,. . ~ /TT v 

Oas. Van Ness Prize Cases (U.S.) 

Vaugh. Vaughan (Eng.) 

Vaux, Vaux's Decisions (Pa.) 

Vent. Ventris (Bug.) 

Vern, Vernon's Cases (EngJ 

Vern,Ch, Vernon's Chancery (Eng.) 

Vern.&S. Vernon & Scriven (Ir.) 

Ves. Vesey Senior (Eng.) 

Ves.&B. Vesey & Beames (JBng) 

VesJr. Vesey Junior (Eng.) 

Vcs.1r.SuppL Vcscy Junior Supplement (Eng.) 

VoH.SuppL VcKoy Senior Supplement (JWug.) 

Viet Victorian 

Vict.L. Victorian Law 

VictL.T. Victorian T-AW Times 

VictRep. Victorian Reports 

Vict.St.Tr. Victorian State Trials 

Vin.Abr. Viner's Abridgment (Bng.) 
Virgin Islands Virgin Islands 

Vt, Vermont 



Old 



Walk. 

Walk. 

Wall. 

Woll.0.0. 

WallJr. 

Wall.Sr. 

Wallis 

Ware 

Wash. 

Wash. 

Wash.St 

WasTi.C.O. 

Wash.T. 

Watts 

Watts&S. 

W.BL 

W.C.O. 

Wobb,A'B.&WJ. 
P.&M. 



WebPatCas. 

Welsh 

Wend. 

West 

AVestLJ. 

West.L.Month. 

West.L.R. 

WestL.T. 



.^ 
West t.Hardw. 

ri917]West.Wkly, 
Whart 
Wheat. 
WhceLCr. 
WhiteATJOead. 
CasJEq. 

Whitm.PatOas. 

Wight 

Wilcox 

Willes 

Wilnu 

Wils. 



w 

Walker (Pa.) 

Walker's Chancery (Mich.) 
Wallace (U.S.) 
Wallace (U.S.) 
Wallace Junior (U.S.) 
Wallace Senior (U.S.) 
Wallis (Ir.) 
Ware (U.S.) 
Washington 
Washington (Va.) 
Washington State 
Washington Circuit Court (U.S.) 
Washington Territory 
Watts (Pa.) 
Watts & Sergeant (Pa.) 
William Blackstone (Eng.) 
Mintou- Sen house's Workmen's Com- 
pensation Cases (HSug.) 

Webb, A'Beckett, & Williams' Insol- 
vency, Probate, and Matrimonial Re- 
ports (Victoria) 

Webster's Patent Cases (Bng.) 

Welsh Registry Cases (Ir.) 

Wendell (N.Y.) 

West (Eng.) 

Western Law Journal (Oh.) 

Western Law Monthly (Oh.) 

Western Law Reporter (Can*) 

Western Law Times (Can.) 

Western Reporter 

West temp. Hardwicko (Bng.) 

Western Weekly (Can.) 

19171 Western Weekly (Can.) 

Wharton (Pa.) 

Whoaton (U.S.) 

Wheeler's Criminal (N.Y.) 

White & Tudor's Leading Cases in Eq- 
uity (Eng.) 

Whitman's Patent Cases (U.S.) 
Wiffhtwicke (Bng.) 
Wilcox (Pa.) 
Willes (Bng.) 
Wilmot's Notes (Bng.) 
Wilson (Ind.) 



TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 



XVII 



Wils.Cn. 
Wils.C.P. 



Wils.P.C. 

Wils.&S. 

Winch 

Winst. 

Wis. 

WJones 

W.KeL 

Wkly.L.Gaz. 

Wkly.N.C. 

Wkly.Rep. 

Wms.Saund. 

W.N. 

Wolf.&B. 

Wolf.&D. 

WolL 

Woodb.&M. 

Woods 

Woodw. 

Woolw; 

Words & Phrases 

Wright 



Wilson's Chancery (Bng.) 

Wilson's Common Pleas (Eng.) 

Wilson's Exchequer (Eng.) 

Wilson's Privy Council (Eng.) 

Wilson & Shaw (Sc.) 

Winch (Eng.) 

Winston (N.C.) 

Wisconsin 

William Jones (Eng.) 

William Kelynge (E)ng.) 

Weekly Law Gazette (Oh.) 

Weekly Notes of Cases (Pa.) 

Weekly Reporter (Eng.) 

Williams Notes to Saunders' Reports 

Weekly Notes (Eng.) 

Wolferstan & Bristow's Election Cas- 
es (Eng.) 

Wolferstan & Dew's Election Cases 
(Eng.) 

Wollaston (Eng.) 

Woodbury & Minot (U.S.) 

Woods (U.S.) 

Woodward's Decisions (Pa.) 

Woolworth (U.S.) 

Words & Phrases 

Wright (Oh.) 



W.Rob. 

Wr.Pa. 

W.Va. 

W.W.Earr. 

W.W.&D. 

W.W.&H. 

Wyo. 

Wythe 

Wy.&W. 

Wy.W.&A'Beck. 



Yates SeLCas. 

Y.B. 

Y.&C.Exch. 

Y.&C01L 

Yeates 

Yelv. 

Yerg. 

"V T 

1.&J. 

York Leg.Rec. 
Young Adm. 
Younge 



William Robinson's Admiralty (Eng.) 

Wright (Pa.) 

West Virginia 

W. W* Harrington 

Willmore, Wollaston & Davidson 

(Eng.) 

Willmore, Wollaston & Hodges (Eng.) 
Wyoming 

Wythe's Chancery (Va.) 
Wyatt & Webb (Viet.) 
Wyatt, Webb & A'Beckett (Vict> 



Yates Select Cases (N.Y.) 

Year Book (Eng.) 

Younge & Collyer's Exchequer (Eng.) 

Younge & Collyer's Chancery (Eng.) 

Yeates (Pa.) 

Yelverton (Eng.) 

Yerger (Tenru) 

Younge & Jervis (Eng.) 

York Legal Record (Pa.) 

Young's Admiralty Decisions (N.S.) 

Younge Exchequer (Eng.) 



LAW REVIEWS AND LAW JOURNALS 



A.B.A.Jour. 
Am.J.IntXaw. 

Am.Law S.Rev. 

B.U.L.Rev. 

Brooklyn L.Rev. 

Calif.L.Rev. 

Camb.L.J. 

Chi-Kent Rev. 

Cohun.L.Rev. 

Oom.L.J. 

Cornell L.Q. 

Detroit LJRev. 

DickJL.Rev. 

Fed.BJuJ. 

Fla.KJ. 

Pordham L.Rev. 

Geo.Wash.L.Rey. 

GeoX.J. 

1-Iarv.L.Rev; 

Ia.L.Rev. 

Idaho L.J* 

IlLL.Rev. 

Ind.L.J. 

J.Am.Jud.Soc. 

J.CompJjeg. 

J.N.A.Referees 

Bank. 
J.Soc.Pub.Teach. 

Law 
John Marshall L. 

Q. 
Kan.Gity L.Rev. 



L.,7. 

L.Lib.J. 

Law Ser.Mo.BuIL 

I/aw SooJ. 



American Bar Association Journal 

American Journal of International 
Law 

American Law School Review 

Boston University Law Review 

Brooklyn Law Review 

California Law Review 

Cambridge Law Journal 

Chicago-Kent Review 

Columbia Law Review 

Commercial Law Journal 

Cornell Law Quarterly 

Detroit Law Review 

Dickinson Law Review 

Federal Bar Association Journal 

Florida Law Journal 

Fordham Law Review 

George Washington Law Review 

Georgetown Law Journal 

Harvard Law Review 

Iowa Law Review 

Idaho Law Journal 

Illinois Law Review 

Indiana Law Journal 

Journal of the American Judicature 
Society 

Journal of the Society of Comparative 
Legislation 

Journal of the National Association of 
Referees in Bankruptcy 

Journal of the Society of Pub. Teach- 
ers of Law 

The John Marshall Law Quarterly 

Kansas City Law Review 

Kansas State Law Journal 

Kentucky Law Journal 

Law Journal 

Law Library Journal 

University of Missouri Bulletin, Law 

Series 
Law Society Journal 



Lincoln L.Rev. 
Marq.L.Rev. 
Mass.L.Q. 
Mercer, Beasley 

L.Rev. 
Mich.L.Rev. 
Minn.L.Rev. 
MissJLJ. 
Neb.L.B. 
N.J.L.J. 
N.J.L.Rev. 
N.Y.UJLQJtev. 



Lincoln Law Review 
Marquette Law Review 
Massachusetts Law Quarterly 



Mercer, Beasley Law Review 

Michigan Law Review 

Minnesota Law Review 

Mississippi Law Journal 

Nebraska Law Bulletin 

New Jersey Law Journal 

New Jersey Law Review 

New York 'University Law Quarterly 

Review 

Notre Dame Law.Notre Dame Lawyer 
N.C.L.Rev. North Carolina Law Review 

Okla.S.B.J. Oklahoma State Bar Journal 

Oreg.L.Rev. Oregon Law Review 

PhiLLbJ. Philippine Law Journal 

Rocky Mt.L.Rev. Rocky Mountain Law Review ' 
St. John's L.Rev. St John's Law Review 
St. Louis LJRev. St. Louis Law Review (now Washing- 
ton University Law Quarterly) 
So.Calif .L.Rev. Southern California Law Review 
Temp.L.Q. Temple Law Quarterly 

Tenn.L.Rev. Tennessee Law Review 

Tex.L.Rev. Texas Law Review 

Tul.L.Rev. Tulane Law Review 

U.CMX.Rev. University of Chicago Law Review 
U.Cin.L.Rev. University of Cincinnati Law Review 

U.Detroit L. J* University of Detroit Law Journal 
U.Pa.L.Rev. University of Pennsylvania Law He- 

view 

U. of Pitts.LJElev.University of Pittsburgh Law Review 
U.Toronto L.J. University of Toronto Law Journal 
Va.L.Rev. Virginia Law Review 

Wash.L.Rev. Washington Law Review 
Wash.UX.Q, Washington University Law Quarterly 

W.Va.L.Q. West Virginia Law Quarterly and The 

Bar 

WisXJaev Wisconsin Law Review 

Yale LJ. Yale Law Journal 



LIST OF TITLES 

IN 

CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM 



.Abandonment 

Abatement and Revival 

Abduction 

Abortion 

Absentees 

Abstracts of Title 

Accession 

Accord and Satisfaction 

Account, Action on 

Accounting 

Account Stated 

Acknowledgments 

Actions 

Adjoining Landowners 

Admiralty 

Adoption of Children 

Adulteration 

Adultery 

Adverse Possessiofc 

Aerial Navigation 

Affidavits 

Affray 

Agency 

Agriculture 

Aliens 

Alteration of Instruments 

Ambassadors and Consuls 

Amicus Curias 

Animals 

Annuities 

Appeal and Error 

Appearances 

Apprentices 

Arbitration and Award 

Architects 

Army and Navy 

Arrest 

Arson 

Assault and Battery 

Assignments 

Assignments for Benefit of 

Creditors 
Assistance, Writ of 



Associations 

Assumpsit, Action of 

Asylums 

Attachment 

Attorney and Client 

Attorney General 

Auctions and Auctioneers 

Audita Querela 

Bail 

Bailments 

Bankruptcy 

Banks and Banking 

Barratry 

Bastards 

Beneficial Associations 

Bigamy 

Bills and Notes 

Blasphemy 

Bonds 

Boundaries 

Bounties 

Breach of Marriage Promise 

Breach of the Peace 

Bribery 

Bridges 

Brokers 

Building and Loan Associations 

Burglary 

Business Trusts 

Canals 

Cancellation of Instruments 

Carriers 

Case, Action on 

Cemeteries 

Census 

Certiorari 

Champerty and Maintenance 

Charities 

Chattel Mortgages 

Citizens 

Civil Rights 

Clerks of Courts 

Clubs 

XIX 



Colleges and Universities 

Collision 

Commerce 

Common Lands 

Common Law 

Common Scold 

Compositions with Creditors 

Compounding Offenses 

Compromise and Settlement 

Concealment of Birth or Death 

Conflict of Laws 

Confusion of Goods 

Conspiracy 

Constitutional Law 

Contempt 

Continuances 

Contracts 

Contratos 

Contribution 

Conversion 

Convicts 

Copyright and Literary 

Property 
Coroners 
Corporations 
Costs 

Counterfeiting 
Counties 

Court Commissioners 
Courts 

Covenant, Action of 
Covenants 
Creditors' Suits 
Criminal Law 
Crops 
Culpa 
Curtesy 

Customs and Usages 
Customs Duties 
Damages 
Dead Bodies 
Death 
Debt, Action of 



LIST OF TITLES 



Dedication 

Deeds 

Dependencies, Colonies, and 

British Possessions 
Depositaries 
Depositions 
Deposits in Court 
Descent and Distribution 
Detectives 
Detinue 
Discovery 

Dismissal and Nonsuit 
Disorderly Conduct 
Disorderly Houses 
District and Prosecuting 

Attorneys 

District of Columbia 
Disturbance of Public Meetings 
Divorce 
Domicile 
Dower 
Drains 
Druggists 
Drunkards 
Dueling 
Easements 
Ejectment 

Election of Remedies 
Elections 
Electricity 
Embezzlement 
Embracery 
Eminent Domain 
Entry, Writ of 
Equity 
Escape 
Escheat 
Escrows 
Estates 
Estoppel 
Evidence 

Exchange of Property 
Exchanges 
Executions 

Executors and Administrators 
Exemptions 
Explosives 
Extortion 
Extradition 
Factors 

False Imprisonment 
False Personation 
False Pretenses 
Federal Courts 
Fences 



Ferries 

Finding Lost Goods 

Fines 

Fires 

Fish 

Fixtures 

Flags 

Food 

Forcible Entry and Detainer 

Forfeitures 

Forgery 

Fornication 

Franchises 

Fraud 

Frauds, Statute of 

Fraudulent Conveyances 

Game 

Gaming 

Garnishment 

Gas 

Gifts 

Good Will 

Grand Juries 

Ground Rents 

Guaranty 

Guardian and Ward 

Habeas Corpus 

Hawkers and Peddlers 

Health 

Highways 

Holidays 

Homesteads 

Homicide 

Hospitals 

Husband and Wife 

Improvements 

Incest 

Indemnity 

Indians 

Indictments and Informations 

Industrial Co-operative 

Societies 
Infants 
Injunctions 
Innkeepers 
Insane Persons 
Insolvency 
Inspection 
Insurance 

Insurrection and Sedition 
Interest 

Internal Revenue 
International Law 
Interpleader 
Intoxicating Liquors 



Joint Adventures 

Joint Stock Companies 

Joint Tenancy 

Judges 

Judgments 

Judicial Sales 
' Juries 

Justices of the Peace 

Kidnapping 

Landlord and Tenant 

Larceny 

Levees and Flood Control 

Lewdness 

Libel and Slander 

Licenses 

Liens 

Limitations of Actions 

Lis Pcndens 

Livery Stable Keepers 

Logs and Logging 

Lost Instruments 

Lotteries 

Malicious Mischief 

Malicious Prosecution 

Mandamus 

Manufactures 

Maritime Liens 

Marriage 

Marshaling Assets and 

Securities 

Master and Servant ^ 
Masters* and Employers' 

Associations 
Mayhem 

Mechanics' Liens 
Mercantile Agencies 
Militia 
Mills 

Mines and Minerals 
Miscegenation 
Modern Civil Law 
Money Lenders 
Money Lent 
Money Paid 
Money Received 
Monopolies 
Mortgages 
Motions and Orders 
Motor Vehicles 
Municipal Corporations 
Names 

Navigable Waters 
Ne Exeat 
Negligence 
Neutrality Laws 



LIST OF TITLES 



XXI 



Newspapers 

New Trial 

Notaries 

Notice 

Novation 

Nuisances 

Oaths and Affirmations 

Obscenity 

Obstructing Justice 

Officers 

Pardons 

Parent and Child 

Parliamentary Law 

Parties 

Partition 

Partnership 

Party Walls 

Patents 

Paupers 

Pawnbrokers 

Payment 

Penalties 

Pensions 

Pent Roads 

Peonage 

Perjury 

Perpetuities 

Physicians and Surgeons 

Pilots 

Piracy 

Pleading 

Pledges 

Poisons 

Possessory Warrant 

Post Office 

Powers 

Principal and Surety, 

Prisons 

Private Roads 

Prize Fighting 

Process 

Profanity 

Prohibition 

Property 

Prostitution 

Public Administrative Bodies 

and Procedure 
Public Lands 
Public Utilities 
Quieting Title 
<Quo Warranto 



Railroads 

Rape 

Real Actions 

Receivers 

Receiving Stolen Goods 

Recognizances 

Records 

References 

Reformation of Instruments 

Reformatories 

Registers of Deeds 

Registration of Land Titles 

Release 

Religious Societies 

Removal of Causes 

Replevin 

Reports 

Rescue 

Review 

Rewards 

Right of Privacy 

Riot 

Robbery 

Sales 

Salvage 

Schools and School Districts 

Scire Facias 

Seals 

Seamen 

Searches and Seizures 

Seduction 

Sequestration 

Set-Off and Counterclaim 

Sheriffs and Constables 

Shipping 

Signatures 

Slaves 

Social Security and Public 

Welfare 
Sodomy 

Specific Performance 
Spendthrifts 
States 
Statutes 
Steam 

Stenographers 
Stipulations 
Street Railroads 
Submission of Controversy 
Subrogation 
Subscriptions 



Suicide 

Summary; Proceedings 

Sunday 

Supersedeas 

Taxation 

Telegraphs and Telephones 

Tenancy in Common 

Tender 

Territories 

Theaters and Shows 

Threats and Unlawful 

Communication 
Time 
Torts 
Towage 
Towns 
Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, 

and Unfair Competition 
Trade Unions 

Trading Stamps and Coupons 
Treason 
Treaties 
Trespass 

Trespass to Try Title 
Trial 

Trover and Conversion 
Trusts 

Turnpikes and Toll Roads 
Undertakings 
United States 

United States Commissioners 
United States Marshals 
Unlawful Assembly 
Use and Occupation 
Usury 
Vagrancy 

Vendor and Purchaser 
Venue 
War 
Warehousemen and Safe 

Depositaries 
Waste 
Waters 
Weapons 

Weights and Measures 
Wharves 
Wills 
Witnesses 
Woods and Forests 
Work and Labor 
Workmen's Compensation 



CORPUS JURIS 
SEGUNDUM 



VOLUME FORTY-NINE 



JUDGMENTS 

This Title includes judicial determinations of rights of parties to proceedings in courts or jusuc< 
in general, interlocutory as well as final; rendition, entry, requisites, and validity of formal judgments 
more particularly of judgments in civil actions, and amendment and correction thereof; operation am 
effect of judgments in respect of persons and' subject matters concluded, and of property bound by judg 
ments, and liens created by entry, docketing, etc., of judgments; conclusiveness of judgments as agains 
collateral attack; direct attacks on judgments by motions in arrest or to open, vacate, etc., judgments 
writs of error coram nobis, etc., or by actions to set aside or restrain enforcement of judgments or fo; 
other relief against them on equitable grounds; assignment of judgments; payment, satisfaction; an< 
discharge of judgments; revival of judgments by scire facias, motion, eta; operation and effect o 
judgments of courts of foreign states and countries; and enforcement of judgments in general, more par 
ticularly actions on judgments. 

Matters not in this Title, treated elsewhere in this work, see Descriptive-Word Index 

Analysis 
I DEFINITION, NATURE/AND KINDS, 1-12 

H. ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OP JUDGMENT, 13-6: 

A. IN GENERAL, 13-22 

B. PROCESS, NOTICE, oir APPEARANCE, 23-26 

C. PARTIES, 27-38 

D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT, 39-45 

E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, 46-61 

m. FORM AND CONTENTS OP JUDGMENT, AND RELIEF AWARDED, 62-86 
IV. ARREST OF JUDGMENT, 87-99 
V. RENDITION, ENTRY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING, 100-133 

" See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

490.XS.-1 1 



JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S. 

VI. JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION, 134-172 

A. IN GENERAL, 134-145 

B. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OP CONCESSION GENERALLY, 146-151 
C UNDER WARRANT OR POWER off ATTORNEY, 152-157 

D. STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS, 15&-159 

K PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING OR ENTERING JUDGMENT, 160-167 

F. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF JUDGMENT, 168-172 

VIL JUDGMENT ON CONSENT, OFFER, OR ADMISSION, 173-186 

V3H JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, 187-218 
'A. IN GENERAL, 187-203 
B. PROCEDURE IN TAKING DEFAULT AND ENTERING JUDGMENT, 204-218 

IX. JUDGMENT ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, 219-227 

X. AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT, 

228-340 

A. JURISDICTION AND POWER GENERALLY, 228-235 

B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION, 236-264 
C OPENING AND VACATING, 265-310 

1. In General, 265-285 

2. Proceedings and Relief, 286-310 

D. WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, 311-313 

E. ACTION TO REVIEW JUDGMENT, 314-319 
R CONFESSED JUDGMENTS, 320-^27 

G. JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, AND ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROOKKDINGS, 

328-332 
H. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT, 333-340 

XL EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT, 341-400 

A. IN GENERAL, 341-349 

B. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF, 350-376 
C PROCOBSDURE, 377-400 

XH. COLLATERAL ATTACK, 401-435 

A. IN GENERAL, 401-415 

B. GROUNDS, 416-435 

XTTT. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMENT, 436-453 

A. CONSTRUCTION, 436-443 

B. OPERATION AND EFFECT, 444-453 

XIV. LIEN OP JUDGMENT, 454-511 
XV. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENTS, 512-530 

XVI. SUSPENSION AND REVIVAL OP JUDGMENT, 531-549 

A. IN GENERAL, 531-532 

B. REVIVAL OF JUDGMENTS, 533-549 

XVIL PAYMENT, SATISFACTION, AND DISCHARGE OF JUDGMENT, 550-584 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

2 



49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS 

XVIH. ENFORCEMENT OP JUDGMENTS, 585-691 

Divisions XIX to End in Volume 5O 
XIX. RES JUDIOATA, | 592-S48 

A. GENERAL PEINCTPLBS, 592-597 

B. MERGER AND BAR off CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENSES, 598-685 

1. General Principles, 598-602 

2. Judgments Operative as Bar, 603-625 

3. Decision on the Merits, 626-647 

4. Causes of Action Merged or Barred, 648-680 

5. Defenses and Counterclaims Barred by Former Judgment, 681-685 

C. CONOLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDICATION, 686-736 

1. General Principles, 686-711 

2. Matters Concluded by Judgment, 712-736 

D. JUDGMENTS IN PARTICULAR CLASSES OF ACTIONS OB PROCEEDINGS, 737-755 

E. PERSONS AFFECTED BY ADJUDICATION, 756-821 

1. Who May Take Advantage of Bar, 756-761 

2. Persons Concluded by Judgments, 762-821 

F. PLEADING AND PROVING JUDGMENTS, 822-848 

XX. ACTION ON JUDGMENT, 849-887 

A. DOMESTIC JUDGMENTS, 849-S66 ^ 

B. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, 867-887 ^ 

XXL FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, 888-906 

A. JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF SISTEB STATES, 888-898 

B. JUDGMENTS OF STATE AND FEDEBAL COUBTS, 899-903 

. C. JUDGMENTS OF COUBTS OF FOBEIGN COUNTBEBS, 904-906 

XXIT. JUDGMENTS IN REM, 907-911 

Sub-Analysis 

t DEFINITION, NATURE, AND KINDS p 25 

1. Definitions p 25 

2. General nature p 26 

3. Entirety of judgments-?-? 27 

4. Distinguished from decisions and findings p 28. 

5. Distinguished from rules and orders p 29 

6. Judgments as contracts or obligations p 30 

7. Judgments as assignments or conveyances p 32 

8. Classification and kinds p 32 

9. Judgment on issue of law p 33 

10. Judgment on issue of fact p 34 

11. Final and interlocutory judgments p 35 

12. Judgments in rem and in personam p 40 

IL ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OF JUDGMENT ^ p 40 

A. IN GENEBAIr p 40 

13. General statement p 40 

14. Statutory provisions and what law governs p 41 

15. Duly constituted court p 41 

16. Time and place p 41 

17. Judges p 42 ^ 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 



JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S. 

EL ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND EECUJLAEITY OP JUDGMENT Continued 

A. IN GENERAL Continued 

18. Formal proceedings p 44 

19. Jurisdiction p 45 

20. Matured cause of action p 51 

21. Definitiveness p 51 

22. Reasons for judgment p 51 

B. PROCESS, NOTICE, OB APPEARANCE p 52 

23. Necessity p 52 

24. Sufficiency p 54 

25. Return and proof of service p 65 

26. Appearance p 65 

C. PARTIES p 67 

27. In general p 67 

28. Judgment for or against one not a party p 68 

29. Death of party p 71 

30. Joint parties p 74 

31. Plaintiffs generally p 74 

. 32. Relief as between coplaintiffs p 75 

33. . Defendants generally p 75 

34. Contract actions p 81 

35. Tort actions p 83 

36. Joint or several judgments p 84 

37. Relief between codefendants p 94 

38. Nominal parties p 95 

D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT p 95 

39. Pleadings p 95 

40. Necessity and sufficiency p 95 

41. Several counts p 100 

42. Issues p 101 

43. Determination of all issues p 101 

44. Evidence p 103 

45. Verdict and findings p 105 

E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS p 107 

46. Conformity to process p 107 

47. Conformity to pleadings aiid proofs p 108 

48. General rules p 108 

49. Limitation to relief sought by pleadings p 111 

50. Limitation and conformity to issues p 117 

51. Applications of rules in general p 119 

52. Nature and form of action p 128 

53. Grounds of action or defense p 129 

54. Amount of recovery p 133 

55. Conformity to verdict, decision, and findings in general j> 138 

56. For and against whom p 143 

57. Amount p 144 

58. Interest p 146 

59. Judgment non obstante veredicto p 147 

60. When and for whom granted p 148 

61. * Motion for judgment p 176 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 



49 C.7.S. JUDGMENTS 

HI. FORM AND CONTENTS OP JUDGMENT, AND BELIEF AWARDED p 180 

62. In general p 180 

63. What law governs p 183 

64. Necessity of writing p 183 

65. One or more judgments in same case p 184 

66. Several causes tried together p 186 

67. Nature and extent of relief p 186 

68. Amount of recovery p 188 

69. Personal judgment in proceedings by attachment or in rem p 188 

70. Affirmative relief to defendant p 189 

71. Recitals p 189 

72. Certainty p 191 

73. Conditional judgments p 192 

74. Alternative judgments p 193 

75. Designation of parties p 194 

76. Designation of amount p 198 

77. Interest p 199 

78. Costs, allowances, and attorney's fees p 200 

79. Medium of payment p 201 

80. Description of property p 203 

81. Date p 204 

82. Provisions for enforcement p 204 

83. Exceptions and saving clauses p 205 

84. Surplusage p 206 

85. Signing by judge or clerk p 206 * 

86. Nonsuit or judgment on merits p 207 

IV. ARRBST OF JUDGMENT p 209 

87. Nature of remedy p 209 

88. Grounds of arrest p 210 

89. Jurisdiction and venue p 211 

90. Process p 211 

91. Parties p 212 

92 4 Pleadings in general p 212 

93. Variance p 215 

94. Jury p 215 

95. Verdict and findings p 216 

96. Miscellaneous p 217 

97. Motions in arrest p 218 

98. Hearing and determination p 220 

99. Operation and effect of arrest p 221 

V. RENDITION, ENTRY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING p 222 

100. Rendition generally p 222 

101. Authority and duty of court p 223 

102. Mode and sufficiency p 224 

103. Reading in open court p 225 

104. Application and order for judgment p 225 

105. On report of referee p 227 

106. Entry generally p 229 

107. Necessity p 230 

108. Authority and duty p 232 

109. Sufficiency and contents; defects and irregularities p 234 

110. Book or place of entry p 235 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

5 



JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S. 

V. RENDITION, ENTEY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING Continued 

111. Signature of record p 236 

112. - Notice of entry p 236 

113. Time of rendition and entry p 237 

114. In vacation p 244 

115. Pendency of motion for new trial or in arrest p 245 

116. Stay of proceedings p 246 

117. Nunc pro tune entry p 246 

118. Power to order and grounds therefor in general p 247 

119. Time of entry p 252 

120. Proceedings to obtain p 253 

121. Operation and effect p 255 

122. Judgment roll or record p 256 

123. Time of making and filing p 257 

124. By whom made and filed p 257 

125. Contents and sufficiency p 258 

126. Docketing p 262 

127. Book or place of entry p 263 

128. Index p 263 

129. Filing transcript p 263 

130. Recording p 266 

131. Lost or destroyed records p 266 

132. Verity and conclusiveness of record p 267 

133. Record as notice p 268 

VL JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION D 268 

A. IN GENERAL p 268 

134. Definition, nature, and distinctions p 268 

135. Classes p 269 

136. Confession after action brought p 269 

137. Confession without action p 271 

138. Debts or claims for which judgment may be confessed p 271 

139. Debts not matured p 272 

140. Contingent liabilities p 272 

141. Future advances p 272 

142. For tort p 272 

143. Who may confess judgment p 272 

144. Joint or several debtors or defendants p 273 

145. In whose favor confessed p 273 

B. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CONCESSION GENERALLY p 273 

146. In general p 273 

147. Compliance with statutory provisions generally p 274 

148. Consent or ratification of creditor p 275 

149. Process, appearance, and pleading p 275 

150. Confession after action p 275 

151. Confession without action p 276 

C UNDER WARRANT OB POWER OB ATTOJ&NEY p 276 
152. In general p 276 

153. Requisites and sufficiency of warrant or power p 278 

154. Construction and operation of warrant or power p 280 

155. Second confession under same power p 288 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

6 



49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS 

VI. JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION Continued 

C. UITDER WARRANT OR POWER OP ATTORNEY Continued 

156. Revocation and defeasance p 288 

157. Confession under void or lost warrant p 289 

D. STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS p 289 

158. Nature and necessity p 289 
159. Requisites and sufficiency p 290 

E. PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING OR ENTERING- JUDGMENT p 294 

160. In general p 294 

161. Jurisdiction and authority p 295 

162. Necessity and sufficiency of proof p 297 

163. Affidavit as to bona fides of confession p 298 

164. Nature, form, and requisites of judgment in general p 299 

165. Entry of judgment p 300 

166. Time of entry p 301 

167. Amount of judgment p 303 

F. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMEMNT p 304 

168. In general p 304 

169. As release or waiver of defects p 305 

170. Presumptions supporting judgment p 306 

171. Effect of invalidity p 306 

172. Estoppel to deny validity p 307 

VET. JUDGMENT ON CONSENT, OFFEB> OR ADMISSION p 308 

173. Consent p 308 

174. Right and authority to consent p 309 

175. Sufficiency of consent or agreement p 311 

176. Entry of judgment p 312 

177. Form and sufficiency of judgment p 313 

178. Construction, operation, and effect p 314 

179. Offer p 317 

180. Authority to offer p 318 

181. Form and sufficiency of offer p 318 

182. Acceptance or rejection, and withdrawal of offer p 319 

183. Entry of judgment p 320 

184. Construction, operation, and effect p 320 

185. Admission in pleading p 321 

186. Submission on agreed statement of facts p 323 

VEX JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT p 324 

A. Isr GENEBAL p 324 

187. What constitutes judgment by default p 324 

188. Constitutional and statutory provisions7-p 326 

189. Actions in which authorized p 326 

190. In whose favor default may be taken p 327 

191. Against whom default may be taken p 328 

192. Jurisdiction in general p 331 

193. Pleadings to sustain judgment p 336 

194. Amendment p 340 

195. Grounds for judgment p 341 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

7 



JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S. 

VHI. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT Continued 

A. IN GENERAL Continued 

196. Default of appearance p 341 

197. Withdrawal of appearance p 342 

198. Absence from trial or other proceeding p 343 . 

199. Default in pleading p 343 

200. Operation and effect of default and judgment p 355 

201. Default as admission p 357 

202. Right to notice of, and participation in, further proceedings p 360 

203. Waiver of default p 361 

B. PBOCEDTTBE IN TAKING DEFAULT AND ENTERING JUDGMENT p 362 

204. Power of court in general p 362 

205. Authority and duty of clerk p 363 

206. Preliminary entry of default p 365 

207. Time for taking default and entering judgment p 366 

208. Application for judgment p 370 

209. Bond or recognizance on taking judgment p 372 

210. Evidence p 372 

211. Proof of jurisdiction*! facts p 373 

212. Proof of default p 373 

213. Proof of cause of action p 374 

214. Hearing, determination, and relief p 376 

215. Form and requisites of judgment p 380 

216. Final or interlocutory p 381 

217. Recitals and record p 382 

218. Office judgments p 384 

IX. JUDCtMENT ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS p 385 

219. In general p 385 

220. Cases in which allowed p 388 

221. Against whom judgment may be rendered p 406 

222. Procedure in general p 407 

223. Notice p 409 

224. Motion p 412 

225. Affidavits and other evidence p 413 

226. Hearing and determination; relief awarded p 429 

227. Form, requisites, and entry of judgment p 432 

3L AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT p 433 

A. JURISDICTION AND POWER GENERALLY p 433 

228. In general p 433 

229. During term p 436 

230. After expiration of term p 438 

231. Where terms abolished p 445 

232. At chambers or in vacation p 445 

233. Authority of clerk p 446 

234. Judgments subject to amendment or vacation p 446 

235. Jurisdiction of particular courts and judges p. 447 

B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION p 447 

236. In general p 447 
237. Clerical and formal changes p 449 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

8 



49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS 

X. AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT Con- 
tinued 

B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION Continued 

238. Judicial and substantial changes p 451 

239. Particular amendments and corrections p 455 

240. Supplying omissions generally p 455 

241. Striking out improper or erroneous entries p 455 

242. Recitals in general p 455 

243. Conforming judgment to verdict or findings p 456 

244. Parties p 457 

245. Process and appearance p 458 

246. Relief awarded in general p 458 

247. Amount of recovery and allowance of interest p 459 

248. Costs and allowances p 461 

249. Other errors or defects p 462 

250. Procedure and reliefr p 464 

251. Jurisdiction p 466 

252. Time for application p 466 

253. Parties p 467 

254. Notice p 467 

255. Contents and sufficiency of application p 469 

256. Evidence; source of amendment or correction p 470 

257. Hearing and determination in general p 472 

258. Allowing amendment nunc pro tune p 473 

259. Discretion of court p 475 

260. Imposition of terms p 475 

261. Order p 476 

262. Mode of making amendments p 476 

263. Operation and effect in general p 476 

264. Rights of third persons p 477 

C. OPENING AND VACATING p 478 

1. In General $ 478 

265. In general p 478 

266. Right to and grounds for relief p 479 

267. Invalidity of judgment in general p 480 

268. Irregularity of judgment in general p 484 

269. Fraud or collusion p 486 

270. Perjury p 489 

271. Violation of agreement p 490 

272. Defenses to action p 491 

273. Newly discovered evidence p 493 

274. Errors of law p 493 

275. Errors of fact p 495 

276. Defects and objections as to parties p 496 

277. Defects and objections as to pleadings p 497 , 

278. Unauthorized, inadvertent, improvident, or premature entry p 499 

,279. Disobedience of order of court or other misconduct of party or coun- 
sel p 499 

280. Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, casualty or misfor- 
tune p 500 

281. Other grounds p 510 

282. Defenses to relief p 511 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 
40 C.J.S.- 2 9 



JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S. 

X. AMENDING, CORRECTING-, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING- JUDGMENT Con- 
tinued 

C OPENING AND VACATING Continued 

1. In General Continued 

283. Other remedies available p Sll 

284. Waiver and estoppel p 512 

285. Assignment of judgment or rights thereunder p 513 

2. Proceedings and Relief p 513 

286. Nature and form of remedy p 513 

287. Vacation on court's own motion p 521 

288. Time for application p 523 

289. Requisites and sufficiency of application p 533 

290. Meritorious cause of action or defense in general p 53S 

291. Proposed answer p 539 

292. Answer and other pleadings p 539 

293. Parties; persons by and against whom proceedings may be brought p 539 

294. Notice or process p 543 

295. Affidavits on application p 544 

296. Counter-affidavits p 545 

297. Evidence p 545 

298. Status of judgment pending application p. 548 

299. Hearing and determination in general p 548 

300. Discretion of court p 552 

301. Relief awarded p 554 

302. Partial vacation p 555 

303. Terms and conditions p 555 

304. Findings p 556 

305. Order p 557 

306. Operation and effect in general p 557 

307. Restitution p 560 

308. Objections and exceptions p 560 

309. Vacation and review of order p 560 

310. Liabilities on bonds given in proceedings to vacate p 561 

D. WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS p 561 

311. In general p 561 

312. When writ lies p 562 

313. Proceedings and relief p 568 

E. ACTION TO REVIEW JUDGMENT p 572 

314. In general p 572 

315. Grounds of action and judgments re viewable p 574 

316. Jurisdiction and procedure generally p 575 

317. Pleading and evidence p 575 

318. Hearing, determination, and relief p 577 

319. Review and costs p 577 

F. CONPBSSBD JUDGMENTS p 578 

320. Amendment p 578 

321. Opening and vacating p 578 

322. Jurisdiction and authority p 582 

323. Grounds p 583 

324. Meritorious defenses p 586 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

10 



49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS 

X. AMENDING, CORRECTING-, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT--Con- 

tinued 

F. CONFESSED JUDGMENTS Continued 

325. Affidavits and other evidence p 589 

326. Hearing, determination, and relief p 593 

327. Operation and effect of opening or vacating p 597 

G. JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, AND ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PBQCEED- 

INGS p 598 

328. Consent judgments p 598 

329. Amendment p 598 

330. Opening or vacating p 599 

331. Judgments on offer and acceptance p 604 

332. Summary judgments p 605 

H. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT p 605 

333. Opening, amending, and vacating generally p 605 

' 334. Right to and grounds for opening or vacating p 608 

335. Judgment on constructive service p 641 

336. Showing meritorious defense p 642 

337. Procedure and relief p 650 

338. Proceedings in cause operating to open default p 688 

339. Proceedings after opening default p 688 

340. Defenses available p 689 

XL EQUITABLE BELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT p 690 

A. IN GENERAL p 690 

341. Nature of remedy and right to relief in general p 690 

342. Jurisdiction p 694 . 

343. Existence of or resort to other remedy; inadequacy of remedy at law 

p 695 

344. Persons entitled to relief p 700 

345. Persons against whom relief available p 701 

346. Judgments against which relief may be granted p 701 

347. By confession or on consent or offer p 703 

348. By default p 703 

349. Meritorious cause of action or defense p 703 

B. GROUNDS K>R RELIEF p 706 

350. In general p 706 

351. Invalidity of judgment p 709 

352. Want of or defects in process or service p 710 

353. False return of service p 711 

354. Unauthorized appearance p 712 

355. Payment or satisfaction of judgment p 712 

356. Errors and irregularities p 713 

357. Defects or objections as to parties or pleadings p 714 

358. Objections to evidence p 715 

359. Error in amount of judgment or relief granted p 715 

360. Irregular rendition or entry p 716 

361. Defenses not interposed in former action p 716 

362. .Equitable defenses p 720 

363. Excuses for not defending p 720 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

11 



JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S. 

XI. EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT Continued 

B. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF Continued 

364. Ignorance of facts or law p 722 

365. Mistake or surprise p 723 

366. Accident or misfortune p 725 

367. Excusable neglect p 726 

368. Negligence or misconduct of counsel p 727 

369. Matters determined in original action p 729 

370. Compelling set-off or reduction of damages p 730 

371. Fraud, perjury, collusion, or other misconduct p 732 

372. Fraud or concealment p 732 

373. Collusion p 745 

374. Perjury and subornation of perjury p 745 

375. Violation of agreement p 748 

376. Newly discovered evidence p 749 

C. PROCEDURE p 751 

377. Form of proceedings p 751 

378. Conditions precedent p 753 

379. Time to sue and limitations p 754 

380. Defenses p 756 

381. Laches p 757 

382. Jurisdiction of particular courts p 759 

383. Venue p 760 

384. Parties p 761 

385. Process and appearance p 764 

386. Release of errors p 764 

387. Preliminary or temporary injunction p 765 

388. Pleading p 767 

389. Bill or complaint p 767 

390. Exhibits p 776 

391. Answer, motion to dismiss, and demurrer p 776 

392. Issues, proof, and variance p 777 

393. Evidence p 778 

394. Pleadings as evidence p 785 

395. Trial or hearing p 786 

396. Dismissal p 787 

397. Judgment or decree, and relief awarded p 787 

398. Review and costs p 790 

399. Operation and effect of injunction p 790 

400. Damages on dissolution of injunction p 791 

XH. COLLATBEAL ATTACK p 792 

A* " IN GENERAL p 792 

401. General rule p 792 

402. To what judgments and courts rule applies -p 798 

403. By confession or on -consent or offer p 800 

404. By default p 800 

405. In criminal cases p 801 

406. Judgments and orders in special proceedings p 802 

407. Judgments of particular courts or tribunals p 802 

408. What constitutes direct or collateral attack p 805 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

12 



49 C: J. S. JUDGMENTS 

XTL COLLATERAL ATTACK Continued 

A. IN GENERAL Continued 

409. Proceedings to enforce judgment p 813 

410. Proceedings to prevent enforcement of judgment p 814 

411. Separate action against party or officer p 816 

412. Parties affected by rule against collateral attack p 817 

413. Parties and privies p 817 

414. Third persons in general p 818 

415. Creditors p 820 

B. GROUNDS p 820 

416. Invalidity of judgment generally p 820 

417. Insufficient or illegal cause of action p 820 

418. Legal disability of parties p 821 

419. Death of party before judgment p 821 

420. Disqualification of judge p 821 

421. Jurisdictional defects p 822 

422. Want of or defects in process or service p 828 

423. Defects in return or proof of service p 830 

424. Unauthorized appearance p 831 

425. Presumptions as to jurisdiction p 831 

426. Recitals of Jurisdictional facts p 843 

427. Decision of court as to* its own jurisdiction p 849 

428. Errors and irregularities p 851 

429. Defects and objections as to parties p 853 

430. Defects and objections as to pleadings p 854 

431. Irregularities in procedure p 855 

432. Objections to evidence p 856 

433. Defects in entry or contents of judgment p 857 

434. Fraud, collusion, or perjury p 859 

435. Defenses available in original action p 862 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMENT p 862 

A. CONSTRUCTION p 862 

436. In general p 862 

437. Recitals p 869 

438. Pleadings p 870 

439. Verdict or findings p 871 

440. Parties p 871 

441. Issues p 872 

442. Recovery and relief p 873 

443. Conflict in record p 874 

B. OPERATION AND EFFECT p 875 

444. In general p 875 

445. Conflicting judgments p 876 

446. Time of taking effect p 876 

447. Conditions and alternative provisions p 877 

448. Extraterritorial operation p 878 

449. Void and voidable judgments p 878 

450. Partial invalidity p 881 

451. Validating void judgment p 882 

452. Ratification and estoppel p 883 

453. Acceptance by prevailing party of part of judgment p 884 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

13 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



33V. LDSN OP JUDGMENT p 884 

454. In general p 884 

455. Nature of lien p 885 

456. Control of lien p 887 

457. Amount of lien p 887 

458. What judgments create lien p 887 

459. Decrees in equity p 888 

460. Organization and character of court p 889 

461. Statutory requirements in general p 889 

462. Transcript or abstract p 889 

463. Recording, docketing, and indexing judgment p 896 

464. Indexing p 898 

465. Sufficiency to create lien p 898 

466. Commencement of lien p 902 

467. Lien of transferred judgment p 904 

468. Necessity of issue of execution p 904 

469. Judgment or amendment nunc pro tune p 905 

470. Effect of stay of execution p 906 

471. Property affected by lien p 906 

472. Nature of property p 906 

473. Location of property p 908 

474. Property previously transferred p 909 

475. Property fraudulently conveyed p 910 

476. Lands instantaneously seized p 910 

477. After-acquired property p 911 

478. Estate or interest affected by lien p 912 

479. Equitable interests in general p 916 

480. Interests of parties to executory contract of sale p 918 

481. Trust estates and legal titles p 920 

482. Leaseholds p 922 

483. Priority of liens p 923 

484. Between judgments p 923 

485. Between judgment and conveyances and other liens p 926 

486. Postponement of lien p 938 

487. Proceedings for determination of priority p 940 

488. Transfer of property subject to lien p 941 

489. Duration of lien p 944 

490. As against junior judgments p 946 

491. Death of judgment debtor p 946 

492. Extending lien p 947 

493. Issue and levy of execution p 947 

494. Revival of judgment p 948 

495. Suit to enforce lien or to subject property; action on judgment p 949 

496. Absence of debtor from state p 949 

497. Agreement of parties p 950 

498. Matters preventing enforcement of judgment p 950 

499. Loss, release, or extinguishment of lien p 951 

500. By release p 953 

501. Payment or satisfaction of judgment p 953 

502. Sale under execution p 954 

503. Stay of execution p 954 

504. Injunction against judgment p 955 

505. Receivership p 955 

506. Opening or vacating judgment p 955 

See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

14 



9 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS 

XIV. LIEN OF JUDaMENT Continued 

507. Waiver and estoppel p 955 

508. Destruction, removal, or concealment of property p 956 

509. Appeal or writ of error p 956 

510. Remedies of creditor after termination of lien p 957 

511. Enforcement of lien p 957 

XV. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENTS p 961 

512. Assignability of judgments p 961 

513. Future judgments p 963 

514. Persons who may assign or purchase p 963 

515. Mode and sufficiency of assignment p 964 

516. Equitable assignments p 967 

517. Consideration p 968 

518. Recording p 969 

519. Operation and effect p 969 

520. Partial assignments p 971 

521. Rights and liabilities of parties p 972 

522. As to judgment debtor in general p 972 

523. As affected by notice to debtor p 975 

524. As affected by equities, defenses, and agreements between original par- 
ties p 976 

525. As between assignor and assignee p 977 

526. As to third persons p 978 

527. Rights incidental to assignment p 979 

528. Effect of reversal or vacation after assignment p 981 

529. Priority of assignments p 982 

530. Setting aside assignment p 983 

XVI. SUSPENSION AND REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT p 983 

A. IN GENERAL p 983 

531. Suspension or stay of proceedings p 983 
532. Dormant judgments p 984 

B. REVIVAL OF JUDGMENTS p 989 

533. Necessity p 989 . 

534. Death of party p 989 

535. Right to revive p 991 

535. Grounds for revival p 991 

537. Who may revive p 991 

538. Against whom revival may be .had p 992 

539. Judgments which may be revived p 994 

540. Defenses or grounds of opposition p 995 

541. Jurisdiction and venue p 999 

542. Time for revival p 999 

543. Mode of revival p 1002 

544. Action to revive p 1003 

545. Action of debt p 1004 

546. Motion to revive p 1004 

547. Summons to show cause p 1005 

548. Scire facias p 1005 

549. Operation and effect of revival p 1019 



See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 

15 



JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S. 

XVH. PAYMENT, SATISFACTION, AND DISCHARGE OP JUDGMENT p 1021 

550. Persons to whom payment may be made p 1021 

551. Clerk of court or other officer p 1022 

552. Mode, medium, and sufficiency of payment p 1022 

553. Tender p 1024 

554. Payment by joint party or third person p 1025 

555. Payment by joint debtor p 1025 

556. Payment by suretj r p 1027 

557. Payment by stranger p 1027 

558. Payment by officer p 1028 

559. Evidence of payment p 1028 

560. Payment as question of law or fact p 1034 

561. Merger of judgments p 1035 

562. Assignment as extinguishment p 1037 

563. Release or discharge p 1037 

564. Joint debtors p 1039 

565. Agreement to release or satisfy p 1040 

566. Set-off of judgment against judgment p 1041 

567. Persons entitled to p 1043 

568. Judgments subject to p 1043 

569. Proceedings to obtain p 1048 

570. Operation and effect p 1050 

571. Set-off of judgment against claim p 1050 

572. Set-off of claim against judgment p 1052 

573. Satisfaction by execution or enforcement p 1054 

574. Other means of satisfaction p 1057 

575. Satisfaction of one of several judgments on same cause of action |p 1057 

576. Against different persons p 1058 

577. Operation and effect of satisfaction p 1058 

578. Recovery of payments p 1059 

579. Entry of satisfaction p 1059 

580. Satisfaction piece p 1060 

581. Proceedings to compel p 1060 

582. Actions and penalties for failure to satisfy p 1065 

583. Effect p 1066 

584. Vacation or correction p 1066 

XVULL ENFORCEMENT OP JUDGMENTS p 1071 

585. In general p 1071 

586. Enforcement at law p 1072 

587. Enforcement in equity p 1074 

588. Scire facias to enforce p 1076 

589. Scire facias to obtain new execution p 1076 

590. Proceedings to make parties p 1076 r-~ -- 

591. Scire facias on justice's transcript p 1077 



See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume 
592 to End in Volume 5O 



16-24 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 
L DEFINITION, NATTJUE, AND KINDS 



1 



l. Definitions 

A judgment may be broadly defined as the decision 
or sentence of the law given by a court or other tribunal 
as the result of proceedings instituted therein; in this 
sense a decision of any court is a judgment, including 
courts of equity, and in a criminal case a sentence Is a 
Judgment. 

In its broadest sense a judgment is the decision or 



sentence of the law given by a court of justice or 
other competent tribunal as the result of proceed- 
ings instituted therein, 1 or the final consideration 
and determination of a court on matters submitted 
to it in an action or proceeding, 2 whether or not 
execution follows thereon. 3 More particularly it 
is a judicial determination that, on matters submit- 



1. N.J. Corpus Juris cited in Dor- 
man v. Usbe Building & Loan 
Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115 N.J.Law 
837. 

Pa. Corpus Juris cited in In re 
Kruska's Estate, 7 Pa.Dist & Co. 
273, 275, 7 Nor thumb. L.J. 281. 

33 C.J. p 1047 note 1. 

Particular kinds of judgments see 
infra 8-12. 

Similar definitions 

(1) The affirmance by law of legal 
consequences attending a proved or 
admitted set of facts. Berg v. Berg, 
132 P.2d 871, 872, 56 Cal.App.2d 495. 

(2) The conclusion of law on facts 
found, or admitted by the parties, or 
upon their default in the course of 
the suit. 

Ky. Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 
S.W.2d 879, 880. 250 Ky. 21. 

N.J. Ross v. C. D. Mallory Corpo- 
ration, 37 A.2d 766, 768, 132 N.J. 
Law 1. 

N.C. Eborn v. Ellis, 35 S.E.2d 238, 
240, 225 N.C. 386. 

Tex. Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 
116 S.W.2d 1114, 1116, error dis- 
missed. 

33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b] (7). 

(3) The Judicial determination or 
sentence of a court on a matter 
within its jurisdiction. 

U.S. U. S. v. Hark, Mass., 64 S.Ct. 

359, 361, 320 U.S. 531, 88 L.Ed. 

290. 
Md. Schmeizl v. Schmeizl, 42 A.2d 

106, 112. 

(4) The final decision or sentence 
of the law rendered by a court with 
respect to a cause within its juris- 
diction and coming legally before 
it as the result of proper proceedings 
rightly instituted. 

Mass. Morse v. O'Hara, 142 N.E. 

40, 41, 247 Mass. 183. 
Okl. Prayer v. Grain, 163 P.2d 966, 

968. 

(5) The final determination of the 
rights of the parties. 

Okl. Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co. 
of Oklahoma, 32 P.2d 42, 43, 168 
Okl. 136 Dresser v. Dresser, 22 
P.2d 1012. 1025, 164 Okl. 94. 

Utah. Patterlck v. Carbon Water 
Conservancy Dist., 145 P.2d 502, 
507. 

(6) The final sentence of the law 
on matter at issue in the case as 
presented by the record. G. Am- 



sinck & Co. v. Springfield Grocer Co., 
C.C.A.MO., 7 P.2d 855, 858. 

(7) The pronouncement of a judge 
on issues submitted to him. Bell 
Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 S.W.2d 879, 
880, 250 Ky. 21. 

(8) What the court pronounces. 
Linton v. Smith, 154 S.W.2d 643, 645, 
137 Tex. 479 De Leon v. Texas Em- 
ployers Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 159 
S.W.2d 574, 575, error refused Lew- 
is v. Terrell, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W. 
2d 151, 153, error refused Jones v. 
Sun Oil Co., Civ.App,, 145 S.W.2d 
615, 619, reversed on other grounds 
153 S.W.2d 571, 137 Tex. 353 Cor- 
bett v. Rankin Independent School 
Dist., Tex.Oiv.App., 100 S.W.2d 113, 
115. 

(9) A number of cases have fol- 
lowed Blacks tone's definition of a 
judgment as the sentence of the law 
pronounced by the court upon the 
matter contained in the record. 
U.S. Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. TJ. S. 

Bottlers Machinery Co., 108 F.2d 
469, 470. 

111. People ex rel. Toman v. Crane, 
23 N.E.2d 337, 3'39, 372 111. 228 
Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v. 
City of Chicago, 17 N.E.2d 1, 3, 369 
111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715. 

Tex. Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 
116 S.W.2d 1114, 1120, error dis- 
missed. 

33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [a]. 

(10) Other similar definitions. 
U.S. Allegheny County v. Maryland 

Casualty Co., C.C.A.Pa., 132 F.2d 
894, 897, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct 
981, 318 U.S. 787, 87 L.Ed. 1154. 

111. General Electric Co. v. Gellman 
Mfg. Co., 48 N.E.2d 451, 318 111. 
App. 644. 

Ky. Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 
S.W.2d .879, 880, 250 Ky. 21. 

Miss. Welch v. Kroger Grocery Co., 
177 So. 41, 42, 180 Miss. 89. 

N.C. Lawrence v. Beck, 116 S.E. 
424, 426, 185 N.C. 196. 

Ohio. State ex rel, Curran v. 
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142 
Ohio St 107. 

Tex. Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App., 
185 S.W.2d 759, 761, refused for 
want of merit Davis v. Hemphill, 
Civ.App., 243 S.W. 691, 693. 

Wis. In re Wisconsin Mut Ins. Co., 
6 N.W.2d 33.0, 331, 241 Wis. 394, 
certiorari denied Hinge v. Duel, 63 

25 



S.Ct. 1157, 319 U.S. 747,' 87 L.Ed. 

1703. 

33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b]. 
Synonymous terms 

(1) The term "judgment" compre- 
hends all decrees and final orders, 
rendered by a court of competent 
jurisdiction, which determine the 
rights of parties affected thereby. 
In re Frey's Estate, 40 N.E.2d 145 
148, 139 Ohio St. 35433 C.J. p 1047 
note 1 [c] (5). 

(2) Other synonymous terms. 
Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Ar- 
tists Corporation, C.C.A.Del. t 113 F. 
2d 703, 70633 C.J. p 1047 note 1 
CcL 

Mythical case 

An attempt to retain the right to- 
pass on the merits of a mythical 
case not then in existence, and which 
will exist as an independent suit,, 
when and if it comes into existence, 
is not a "judgment" as that term 
is legally defined. Goldsmith v. 
Salkey, 112 S.W.2d 165, 169, 131 Tex. 
139. 

2. U.S. Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. 
U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co.; C.C. 
A.I11., 108 F.2d 469, 470. 

111. People ex rel. Toman v. Crane, 
23 N.E.2d 337, 339, 372 111. 228 
Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v. 
City of Chicago, 17 N.E.2d 1, 3* 
369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715 Peo- 
ple ex rel. Klee v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d 
923, 929, 309 111. App. 72 People- 
ex rel. Keeler v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d 
922, 309 IlLApp. 133 People ex 
rel. Gallachio v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d 
921, 909 IlLApp. 133 People ex 
rel. Clennon v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2oT 
921, 309 IlLApp. 133 People ex 
rel. Salomon v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d 
920, 309 IlLApp. 133. 

Tex. Fort Worth Acid Works v. 
City of Fort Worth, Civ.App., 248: 
S.W. 822, 824, affirmed City of Fort 
Worth v. Fort Worth Acid Works- 
Co., Cora.App., 259 S.W. 919. 

Similarly expressed 

Ohio. State ex rel. Curran v. 
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142 
Ohio St 107. 

Okl. State v. Walton, 236 P. 629 r 
632, 30 Okl.Cr. 416. , 

33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b3 (4). 

3. pa, Petition of Kariher, 181 X. 
265, 270, 284 Pa, 455. 



1 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



ted to a court for decision, a legal duty or liability 
does or does not exist, 4 or that, with respect to a 
claim in suit, no cause of action exists or that no 
defense exists. 5 

In the broad sense here denned, a decision of any, 
court is a judgment, 6 including courts of equity, 7 
admiralty, 8 and probate. 9 The judgment of a court 
of equity or admiralty, however, as distinguished 
from the judgment of a court of common law, is 
generally known as a "decree." 10 In a criminal 
case a sentence is a judgment. 11 In a narrower 
sense the term "judgment" is limited to a decision 
of a court of law. 12 

Under codes. Under most codes of procedure, 
judgments are defined in substance as the final de- 
termination of the rights of the parties in an ac- 
tion or proceeding. 13 Under codes abolishing the 
distinction between actions at law and suits in eq- 
uity, a decree is included in the code definition of 
a judgment, and the final determination of a cause 



is a judgment whether the relief granted is equita- 
ble or legal. 14 Indeed the terms "judgment" and 
"decree" are more or less synonymous and. inter- 
changeable in code practice. 15 

An "adjudication" is a judgment or the entry of 
a decree by a court with respect to the parties in a 
case. 16 

2. General Nature 

A Judgment is a judicial act which settles the is- 
sues, fixes the rights and liabilities of the parties, and 
determines the proceeding, and it is regarded as the 
sentence of the law pronounced by the court on the ac- 
tion or question before it. 

A judgment is the judicial act of a court 17 by 
which it accomplishes the purpose of its creation. 18 
It is a judicial declaration by which the issues are 
settled 19 and the rights and liabilities of the parties 
are fixed as to the matters submitted for decision. 20 
In other words, a judgment is the end of the law; 21 
its rendition is the object for which jurisdiction is 



4. Wash. In re Clark, IffS P.2d 577, 

580. 
B. Okl. Frayer v. Grain, 163 P.2d 

966, 968. 

6. 111. Patterson v. Scott, 33 111. 
App. 348, affirmed 31 N.E. 433, 143 
111. 138. 

33 C.J. p 1048 note 2. 

7. Gal. Coleman v. Los Angeles 
County, 182 P. 440, 180 Cal. 714. 

33 C.J. p 1048 note 3. 

8. U.S. IT. S. v. Wonson, C.C.Mass., 
28 F.Cas.No.16,750, 1 Gall. 5. 

9. Ohio. In re Frey's Estate, 40 N. 
E.2d 145, 148, 139 Ohio St. 354. 

33 C.J. p 1048 note 5. 

10. U.S. Lamson v. Hutchings, 111., 
118 F. 321, 323, 55 C.C.A. 245, cer- 
tiorari denied 23 S.Ct. 853, 189 U. 
S. 514, mem, 4 L.Ed 924. 

33 C.J. p 1049 note 6. . 

"Decree" defined see Equity 580. 

11. Wash. In re Clark, 163 P.2d 
577, 581. 

33 C.J. p 1049 note 8. 

12. Cal. Coleman v. Los Angeles 
County, 182 P. 440, 180 Cal. 714. 

33 C.J. p 1049 note 9. 

13. U.S. G. Amsinck & Co. v. 
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.Mo., 
7 F.2d 855, 858. 

Ark. Wann v. Reading Co., 108 S. 
W.2d 899, 901, 194 Ark. 541. 

Idaho. State v. McNichols, 115 P. 
2d 104, 107, 62 Idaho 616. 

Iowa. Whittier v. Whittler, 23 N*.W. 
2d 435, 440. 

Ky. Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 
S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.' 

I/a. Lacour Plantation Co. v. Jewell, 
173 So. 761, 763, 186 La. 1055. 

Mont. State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis- 
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dis- 
trict in and fof Missoula County, 



57 P.2d 778, 780, 102 Mont. 222. 
N.Y. Wood v. City of Salamanca, 45 

N.E.2d 443, 445, 289 N.T. 279. 
N.D. Universal Motors v. Coman, 15 

N.W.Sd 73, 73 N.D. 337. 
33 C.J. p 1049 note 10. 

14. Mont. Raymond v. Blancgrrass, 
93 P. 648, 36 Mont. 449, 15 L.R.A., 
tf.S., 976. 

33 C.J. p 1050 note 11. 

15. Wash. Smith v. Smith, 115 P. 
166, 167, 63 Wash. 288. 

33 C.J. p 1050 note 12. 

16. U.S. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. 
United Artists Corporation, C.C.A. 
Del., 113 F.2d 703, 706. 

Hearing 

An "adjudication" essentially im- 
plies a hearing by a court, after no- 
tice, of legal evidence on the factual 
issue involved. Genzer v. Fillip, 
Tex.Civ.App.,- 134 S.W.2d 730, 732, er- 
ror dismissed, judgment correct. 

17. 111. People ex rel. Toman v. 
Crane, 23 N.E.2d 337, 339, 372 111. 
228 Blakeslee's Storage Ware- 
houses v. City of Chicago, 17 N.E. 
2d 1, 3, 369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 
715. 

N.J. Dorman v. Usbe Building & 
Loan Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115 
N.J.Law 337. 
Determination of Judge 

Judgments are the solemn deter- 
minations of judges on subjects sub- 
mitted to them, and a judgment is 
not what may be rendered, but what 
is considered and delivered by the 
court. Eborn v. Ellis, 35 S.B.2d 238, 
225 N.C. 386. 
Fiat 

'A judgment is a fiat of a court, 
settling the rights of the parties, 
and, however unjust, erroneous, or 

26 



illegal the settlement may be, the 
parties can claim under it only 
that which, by its terms, the judg- 
ment awards. Lacaze v. Hardee, La. 
App., 7 So.2d 719, 724. 

18. Okl. Protest of Gulf Pipe Line 
Co. of Oklahoma, 32 P.2d 42, 43, 
168 Okl. 136. 

Purpose 

(1) Judgments are judicial acts 
with the primary objective in view 
of concluding controversies with as 
high a degree of exact justice as it 
is humanly possible to do. Jackson 
v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W. 
2d 759, 761, refused for want of mer- 
it. 

(2) Purpose of every judgment 
should be to limit litigation and 
clearly establish rights of parties as 
found by courts. Cameron v. Feath- 
er River Forest Homes, 33 P.2d 884, 
139 CaLApp. 373. 

19. Tex. Lewis v. Terrell, Civ.App., 
154 S.W.2d 151, 153, error refused. 

Imposed in invitum 

A judgment is usually imposed in 
invitum, although it may be for the 
enforcement of an indebtedness pre- 
viously contracted. Cherey v. City 
of Long Beach, 26 N.E.2d 945, 282 N. 
T. 382, 127 A.L.R. 1210. 
Opinion and adjudication 

Judgment reciting in substance 
that court, considering proof and 
pleadings, was of opinion and so 
adjudged that defendant was indebt- 
ed to plaintiff in certain sum with 
interest and costs was "judgment." 
Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 S.W.2d 
879, 250 Ky. 21. 

20. Utah. Adams v. Davies, 156 P. 
2d 207, 209. 

21. Kan. Corpus Juris auoted in 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



conferred and exercised, 22 and it is the power by 
means of which a liability is enforced against the 
debtor's property. 23 A judicial judgment is not 
necessarily a judgment for money or thing enforce- 
able by execution or other process; it may be a 
final and conclusive determination of a status, or a 
right, or a privilege, or the basis of action. 2 * A 
judgment is neither an action nor a special proceed- 
ing, but is the determination of an action or pro- 
ceeding. 26 

A judgment is the sentence of the law on the ul- 
timate facts admitted by the pleadings or proved by 
the evidence. 26 It is not a resolve or decree of the 
court, but the sentence of the law prpnounced by 
the court on the action or question before it. 27 It 
must be based solely on the legal rights of the liti- 
gants and not on the result of the litigation. 28 

A judgment constitutes the considered opinion of 
the court 29 and is a solemn record 30 and formal .ex- 



pression and evidence of the actual decision of a 
lawsuit. 31 The precedent or draft for judgment 
may not be treated as a judgment. 32 

Vested right of property. A judgment may con- 
stitute a vested right of property in the judgment 
creditor 33 within the protection of constitutional 
provisions discussed in Constitutional Law 271- 
272. 

3. Entirety of Judgments 

A judgment is an entirety. 

It has generally been held to be the rule that a 
judgment must be treated as an entirety. 34 The ef- 
fect of this rule as requiring that a judgment stand 
or fall as a whole, and the circumstances under 
which a judgment which is partially invalid may be 
enforced as far as it is valid, are discussed infra 
450. 



Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An- 
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan. 
670. 

Tex. Corpus Juris quoted in Wil- 
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W. 
2d 1114. 1116, error dismissed. 

23 C.J. p 1051 note 19. 

A Judgment is the law's last word 
in a judicial controversy. 
U.S. Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. TJ. 

S. Bottlers Machinery Co., C.C.A. 

111., 108 F.2d 469, 470. 
Ala. Hudson v. Wright, 51 So. 389, 

164 Ala. 298, 137 Am.S.R. 55. 
111. People ex rel. Toman v. Crane, 

28 N.B.2d 337, 339, 372 111. 228 
, Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v. 

City of Chicago, 17 N.B.2d 1, 3, 369 

111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715. 
N.Y. Steinberg v. Mealey, 33 N.Y.S. 

2d 650, 263 App.Div. 479. 

22. Kan. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An- 
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan. 
670. 

Tex. Corpus Juris quoted in Wil- 
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W. 
2d 1114, 1116, error dismissed. 

33 C.OT. p 1051 note 20. 

23. Kan. Corpus Juris quoted In. 

Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An- 
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan. 
670. 

N.J. Nichols v. Dissler, 81 N.J.Law 
461, 473, 86 AmJX 219. 

N.T. Steinberg v. Mealey, 38 N.T.S. 
2d 650, 263 App.Div. 479. 

Tex. Corpus Juris quoted in Wil- 
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W. 
2d 1114, 1116, error dismissed. 

Existence and enforcement of indebt- 
edness 

Judgment Is credit, chose in ac- 
tion, or incorporeal right, which de- 
clares existence of indebtedness, 



fixes amount due and owing, and pro- 
vides means for enforcing payment 
thereof, although it does not create, 
add to, or detract from debt. Salter 
v. Walsworth, La.App., 167 So. 494. 

24. U.S. In re Frischer & Co., 16 
Ct.gust.App. 191. 

Affirmation of liattlity 

A judgment is merely the affirma- 
tion of a liability, and leaves the 
parties to pursue remedies provided 
by law. San Luis Power & Water 
Co. v. Trujillo, 26 P.2d 537, 540. 98 
Colo. 385. 

25. Iowa. Gray v. Iljff, 30 Iowa 
195, appeal dismissed 14 S.Ct. 1168, 
154 U.S. 589, 38 L.Bd. 1088. 

"Action" as including judgment see 

Actions 1 a (1) (c). 
"Proceeding" distinguished from 

"judgment" see Actions 1 h (1) 

(b). 

26. Kan. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An- 
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan. 
670. 

N.C. Lawrence v. Beck, 116 S.E. 424, 

185 N.C. 196. 

It is a conclusion of law from 
facts proved or admitted in suit 
Bell v. State Industrial Accident 
Commission, 74 P.2d 65, 157 Or. 653. 

27. U.S. G. Amsinck & Co. v. 
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.MO., 
7 P.2d 855. 

33 C.J. p 1051 note 24. 

It applies the law to past or pres- 
ent facts 

U.S. Oklahoma City, Okl., v. Dolese, 
C.C.A.Okl., 48 P.2d 734. 

Conn. Eastern Oil Refining Co. v. 
Court of Burgesses of Wallingford, 
36 A.2d 586, 130 Conn. 606. 

27 



28. R.I. Cleveland v. Jencks Mfg. 
Co., 171 A. 917, 54 R.I. 218. 

Set-off of errors 

A correct judgment cannot be pro- 
duced by a set-off of errors. Eber- 
hardt v. Bennett, 137 S.E. 64, 163 
Ga. 796. 

29. Tex. Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ. 
App., 185 S.W.2d 759, 761, refused 
jfor want of merit. 

30. N.J. Dorman v. Usbe Building 
& Loan Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115 
N.XLaw -337. 

31. Cal. Gossman v. Gossman, 126 
P.2d 178, 185, 52 Cal.App.2d 184. 
"There are two necessary elements 

in any valid judgment or order of 
a court; (a) The court's decision or 
determination, usually evidenced by 
some oral statement or pronounce- 
ment of the court, but often by a 
written opinion, direction or decree; 
and (b) the enrollment or entry by 
the clerk of the court's action, or 
the essential part of it, upon the 
order book or record of the court. 
The first element is judicial; the 
latter clerical. The former involves 
discretion;, the latter obedience." 
Happy Coal Co. v. Brashear, 92 S.W. 
2d 23, 28, 263 Ky. 257. 

32. Ark. Wtann v. Beading Co., 108 
S.W.2d 899, 194 Ark. 541. 

33. N.T. Livingston v. Livingston, 
66 N.E. 123, 173 N.T. 377. 93 Am. 
S.R. 600, 61 L.R.A. 800. 

33 C.J. p 1059 note 93. 

34. 111. Holer v. Kaplan, 145 N.E. 
243, 31$ 111. 448 Corpus Juris cit- 
ed in Coyle v. Velie Motors Cor- 
poration, 27 N.E.2d 60, 63, 305 111. 
App. 135. 

Mo. Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 

41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389. 
33 C.J. p 1051 note 25. 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



4. _ Distinguished from Decisions and 
Findings 

As a general rule, decisions, opinions, findings, or 
verdicts do not constitute a judgment or decree but 
merely form the basis on which the Judgment is subse- 
quently to be rendered. 

As a general rule, the decisions, opinions, or find- 
ings of a court, 35 referee, 36 administrative board, 87 
or committee 58 do not constitute a judgment or de- 
cree, but merely form the basis on which the judg- 
ment is subsequently to be rendered. 39 Under some 



statutes, however, the word "decision" is used as the 
equivalent of "judgment" and "decree," 40 and is 
distinguished from the term "opinion" in that the 
latter term refers to a statement of reasons on 
which the decision or judgment rests. 41 

- A verdict is not a judgment, but only the basis 
for a judgment, which may, or may not, be entered 
on it. 42 A finding is not a judgment any more than 
is the verdict of a jury. 43 Such findings or deci- 
sion amount only to an order for judgment 44 and 



35. U.S. -Baxter v. City and County 
of Dallas Levee Improvement 
Dist., C.C.A.TCX., 131 F.2d 434 
G. Amslnck & Co. v. Springfield 
Grocer Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855 
McGhee v. Leitner, D.C.Wis., 41 
F.Supp. 674. 

Ala, Cooper v. Owen, 161 So. 98, 230 
Ala. 316. 

Cal. El Centro Grain Co. v. Bank of 
Italy Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n, 
11 P.2d 650, 123 Cal.App. 6G4 
Hume v. Lindholm, 258 P. 1003, 85 
Cal.App. 80. 

Colo. First Nat. Bank v. Mulich, 
266 P. 1110, 83 Colo. 518. 

Idaho. Blaine County Inv. Co. v. 
Mays, 15 P.2d 734, 52 Idaho 381. 

Iowa. Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d 
796 Creel v. Hammans, 5 N.W.2d 
109, 232 Iowa 95 In re Evans* 
Estate, 291 N.W. 460, 228 Iowa 908. 

La. Delahoussaye v. I>. M. Glazer 
& Co., App., 182 So. 146, reheard 
185 So. 644 Miller v. Morgan's Da. 
& T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 1 La.App. 
267. 

Me. Jones v. Jones, 8 A.2d 141, 136 
Me. 238. 

Mich. Dolenga v. Lipka, 195 N.W. 
90, 224 Mich. 276. 

Mont. Corpus Juris Quoted in Con- 
way v. Fabian, 89 P.2d 1022, 1028, 
108 Mont. 287, certiorari denied 
Fabian v. Conway, 60 S.Ct 94, 
308 U.S. 578, 84 L.Ed. 484 State 
ex rel. King v. District Court of 
Third Judicial Dist., 86 P.2d 755, 
107 Mont, 476 Corpus Juris gnot- 
ed in Galiger v. McNulty, 260 P. 
401, 403, 80 Mont. 339. 

Okl. Corpus Juris cited, in, Davis v. 
Baum, 133 (P.2d 889, 891, 192 Okl. 
85 Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309, 
168 Okl. 220. 

Tex. Permian Oil Co. v. Smith, 73 
S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L. 
R. 1152, rehearing denied 107 S.W. 
2d 564, 129 Tex, 413, 111 A.L.R. 
1175 Davis v. Hemphill, Civ.App., 
243 S.W. 691. 

33 C.J. p 1052 note 33. 

"Decision" and "opinion" of court 
generally defined see Courts 181 
a. 
The mental conclusion of the judge 

presiding at a trial, the oral an- 
nouncement of such conclusion, his 

written memorandum entered in the 

calendar, or the abstract entered in 



the judgment docket do not consti- 
tute a judgment. Ranee v. Gaddis, 
284 N.W. 468, 478, 226 Iowa 531 
Lotz v. United Food Markets, 283 N. 
W. 99, 101, 225 Iowa 1397. 
Actual sentence of law 

Judgment purports to be actual 
and absolute sentence of law, as 
distinct from mere finding that one 
of parties is entitled to judgment, or 
from direction to effect that judg- 
ment may be entered. American 
Motorists' Ins. Co. v. Central Garage, 
169 A. 121, 86 N.H. 302. 

An, orally expressed opinion, or 
finding by a judge does not consti- 
tute a judgment. Moffott v. Lewis, 
11 P.2d 397, 123 Oal.App. 30733 C. 
J. p 1052 note 33 [c]. 
Inconsistency 

Decree was not void because find- 
ings of fact and conclusions of law 
were inconsistent with decretal por- 
tion since findings do not constitute 
the judgment. Higley v. Kinsman, 
Iowa, 216 N.W. 673. 

The Judge's minutes cannot be re- 
garded as the judgment or decree 
rendered by the court, but are mere- 
ly a memorandum of the decision 
made by trial judge on his docket 
for guidance of the clerk in entering 
the decree on the journal. Ex parte 
Nikl'aus, 13 N.W.2d 655, 144 Neb. 503. 
38. Fla. Demens v. Poyntz, 6 So. 

261, 25 Fla. 654. 
33 C.J. p 1053 note 3453 C.J. p 757 

notes 32-34* 

37. Md. Dal Maso v. Board of 
Com'rs of Prince George's County, 
34 A.2d 464, 182 Md. 200. 

38. Conn. Cothren v. Olms ted, 18 
A. 254. 57 Conn. 329. 

39. U.S. G. Amsinck & Co. v. 
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.Mo., 
7 F.2d 855, 858 Corpus Juris cited 
in Roessler & Hasslacher Chemi- 
cal Co. v. U. S., 13 Ct.Cust.App. 
451, 455. 

D.C. Lambros v. Young, 145 F.2d 
341, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 247. . 

Idaho. Blaine County Inv. Co. v. 
Mays, 15 P.2d 734, 52 Idaho 381. 

Mont. Lewis v. Lewis, 94 P.2d 211, 
109 Mont. 42 Corpus Juris quoted 
in Conway v. Fabian, 89 P.2d 1022, 
1028, 108 Mont. 287, certiorari de- 
nied Fabian v. Conway, 60 S.Ct 94, 

28 



308 U.S. 578, 84 L.Ed. 484 Corpus 
Juris Quoted in Galiger v. McNul- 
ty, 260 P. 401, 403, 80 Mont. 339. 
N.H. American Motorists' Ins. Co. 
v. Central Garage, 169 A. 121, 86 
N.H. 362. 
Okl. Moronoy v. Tannehill, 215 P. 

938, 90 Okl. 224. 
33 C.J. p 1053 note 36. 
"Decision" synonymous with "opin- 
ion" 

"Decision," as used in statute pro- 
viding that a decision of a depart- 
ment of supreme court shall not be- 
come final until thirty days after fil- 
ing thereof, is synonymous with- 
"opinion." In re Brown's Guvardlan- 
ship, 107 P.2d 1104, 6 Wash.2d 215. 

40. U.S. Rogers v. Hill, N.T., 53: 
S.Ct. 731, 734, 289 U.S. 582, 77 L. 
Ed. 1385. 

41. U.S. Rogers v. Hill, supra. 
Decision based on findings 

Decision of court based on findings- 
within statute requiring such deci- 
sion, when filed, amounts to a rendi- 
tion of a judgment, which is a ju- 
dicial act. McKannay v. McKannay, 
230 P. 218, 68 CaLApp. 709. 

42. Del. Nelson v. Canadian Indus- 
trial Alcohol Co., 189 A. 691, 8 W. 
W.Harr. 165, affirmed 197 A. 477,, 
9 W.W.Harr. 184. 

111. People ex rel. Wakcfield v. 

Montgomery, 6 N.B.2d 868, 365 111.. 

478 Mitchell v. Bareckson, 250 111. 

App, 508. 
N.T. Fuentes v. Mayorga, 7 Daly 

103, 104. 
Utah. Ellinwood v. Bennion, 276 P. 

159, 73 Utah 563. 

43. 111. Central Republic Bank & 
Trust Co. v. Bent, 281 111. App. 365. 

Mont. Corpus Juris quoted in Gali- 
ger v. McNulty, 260 P. 401, 403, 
80 Mont. 229. 
Tex. Davis v. Hemphill, Civ. App.,. 

243 S.W. 691. 
33 C.J. p 1053 note 38. 
Pact findings 

Although fact findings are proper,, 
only decretal portion of decree ad- 
judicates parties' rights. Higley v 
Kinsman, Iowa, 216 N.W. 673. 

44. MontCorpus Juris quoted in. 
Galiger v. McNulty, 260 P. 401* 
403, 80 Mont. 229. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



are subject to modification or change until embodied 
in a definitive written order of the court. 45 

5. Distinguished from Rules and Or- 
ders 

Judgments generally are distinguished from rules or 
orders in that a judgment is the final determination of 
the rights of the parties ending the suit whereas a rule 
or order is an interlocutory determination of some sub- 
sidiary or collateral matter, not disposing of the merits. 

As a general rule, judgments are to be distin- 
guished from orders or rules; one does not in- 
clude the other. 46 However, certain orders have 
sometimes been denominated as judgments, 47 and 
it has been held that the character of an instru- 
ment, whether a judgment or an order, is to be de- 
termined by its contents and substance, and not by 
its title. 48 As distinguished from a judgment, an 



order is the mandate or determination of the court 
on some subsidiary or collateral matter arising in an 
action, not disposing of the merits, but adjudicating 
a preliminary point or directing some step in the 
proceedings; 49 and the term is commonly defined 
in codes of procedure as every direction of a court 
or judge, made or entered in writing, and not in- 
cluded in a judgment. 50 A judgment, on the other 
hand, is the determination of the court on the issue 
presented by the pleadings which ascertains and 
fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties 
in the particular suit with relation to the subject 
matter in litigation, and puts an end to the suit 51 
The distinguishing characteristic of a judgment is 
that it is final, 52 while that of an order, when it re- 
lates to proceeding in an action, is that it is inter- 
locutory, 53 although there are so-called interlocu- 



Okl. Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309, 

168 Okl. 220. 
33 C.J. p 1053 note 39. 

45. Okl. Lee v. Epperson, supra. 
33 C.J. p 1053 note 40. 
Reversal of oral decision 

Court may enter formal written 
order contrary to prior oral decision. 
State ex rel. Mountain Develop- 
ment Co. v. Superior Court for 
Pierce County, 67 P.2d 861, 190 
Wash. 183. 

46. Ala. Corpus Juris cited in Mt. 
Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Union 
Springs Guano Co., 155 So. 716, 
717, 229 Ala. 91. 

III. Robinson v. Steward, 252 HI. 

App. 203. 
Ohio. McMahon v. Keller, 11 Ohio 

App. 410. 
Okl. Foreman v. Riley, 211 P. 495, 

88 Okl. 75. 
33 C.J. p 1053 note 41. 

Administrative regulations pursu- 
ant to statutory authority are gen- 
erally legislative and do not have at- 
tributes of judicial judgment or de- 
cree. Sparkman v. County Budget 
Commission, 137 So. 809, 103 Fla. 242. 

47. Mont. State ex rel. Meyer v. 
District Court of Fourth Judicial 
Dist. in and for Missoula County, 
57 P.2d 778, 102 Mont 222. 

Ohio. Continental Automobile Mut. 

Ins.. Co. v. Jacksick, 188 N.E. 662, 

46 Ohio App. 344. 
33 C.J. p 1053 note 42. 

"Final order" as defined by stat- 
ute is comprehended within term 
"judgment." -Continental Automo- 
bile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jacksick, supra. 
Dismissal for failure to prosecute 
action 

An order dismissing plaintiffs' ac- 
tion for failure to bring it to trial 
within five years after filing of com- 
plaint was a judgment. Colby v. 
Pierce. 62 P.2d 778, 17 Cal.App.2d 



Final disposition of cause 

First order containing all neces- 
sary recitals which, with finality, 
disposes of cause, is regarded as 
"judgment." In re Method's Es- 
tate, 21 P.2d 1084, 143 Or. 233. 

48. Idaho. State v. McNichols, 115 
P.2d 104, 62 Idaho 616. 

Mont. State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis- 
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dis- 
trict in and for Missoula County, 
57 P.2d 778, 102 Mont. 222. 
Or. In re McLeod's Estate, 21 P.2d 
1084, 143 Or. 233. 

The word "judgment" need not *be 
used in order to constitute the or- 
der a judgment. State ex rel. Head- 
ley v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 
Ohio App., 67 N.E.2d 70. 

49. Iowa. Whit tier v. Whittier, 23 
N.W.2d 435. 

Nev. Elsman v. Elsman, 2 P.2d 139, 
54 Nev. 20, rehearing denied 3 P. 
2d 1071, 54 Nev. 20. 
33 C.J. p 1053 note 43. 
"Order" generally defined see Mo- 
tions and Orders 1, also 42 C.J. 
p 464 note 9-p 465 note 13. 
Order held a finding 

Order for "return of goods irre- 
pleviable" was not itself a judgment, 
but was a finding that defendant was 
entitled to return of automobile. 
Commercial Credit Corporation v. 
Flowers, 185 N.E. 30, 282 Mass. 316. 

50. Iowa. Whittier v. Whittier, 23 
N,W.2d 435. . M 

Okl. Foreman v. Riley, 211 P. 495, 
88 Okl. 75. 

S.D. Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen- 
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630. 

Wis. Newlander v. Riverview Real- 
ty Co., 298 N.W. 603. 610, 238 Wis. 
211, 135 A.L.R. 383. 

33 C.J. p 1055 note 55. 

Order as to title 
An order, adjudging that title of 

mortgage trustee who purchased 

mortgaged property at foreclosure 

29 



sale was merchantable, and that he 
recover, from person with whom 
he entered into contract for sale of 
premises, damages for refusal to 
complete contract, was an "order" 
in a "proceeding at the foot of a 
judgment", and was not a "judg- 
ment" under statutory definition. 
Newlander v. Riverview Realty Co., 
supra. 

51. Mo. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Koch v. Meacham, 121 S.W.2d 279, 
281, 233 Mo.App. 453. 

33 C.J. p 1054 note 44 42 CJ. p 466 

note 34. 
"Judgment" defined generally see 

supra 1. 
Order granting naturalization as 

judgment see Aliens 140 c. 

52. Nev. Elsman v. Elsman, 2 P. 
2d 139, 54 Nev. 20, rehearing de- 
nied 3 P.2d 1071, 54 Nev. 20. 

N.Y. In re Kennedy's Estate, 281 
N.T.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166. 

Tex. Vacuum Oil Co. v. Liberty Re- 
fining Co., Civ.App., 247 S.W. 597, 
reversed on other grounds Key- 
stone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Liber- 
ty Refining Co., Com. App., 260 S.W. 
1018. 

33 C.J. p 1054 note 45. 

Determination and disposition of 
ease 

An order which has effect of final- 
ly determining rights of parties, and 
finally disposing of case is "judg- 
ment." State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis- 
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dist. 
in and for Missoula County, 57 P.2d 
778, 102 Mont. 222. 

Tax eale judgment was held "fiaal 
judgment," notwithstanding recital" 
therein that judgment "should be 
rendered." Griggs v. Montgomery, 
Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 688. 

53. N.Y. In re Kennedy's Estate, 
281 N.Y.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166. 

&3 C.J. p 1054 note 46. 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



tory judgments, as is discussed infra 11, and final 
orders, as is discussed in -the CJ.S. title Motions 
and Orders 2, also 42 CJ. p 468 notes 65-74. 

A decision sustaining or overruling a demurrer 
ordinarily is an order, not a judgment, 54 although 
there is also some authority to the contrary. 55 An 
order or rub ordinarily is not founded on the whole 
record in the case, but is granted on a special appli- 
cation to the court called a "motion;" the determi- 
nation of such motion is an order, not a judgment. 56 
A special proceeding regularly terminates in a final 
order, not a judgment, 57 although the final order in 
a special proceeding is in effect a judgment and is 
sometimes referred to as such. 58 

Order for judgment. An order merely directing 
or authorizing the entry of judgment in the case 
does not constitute a judgment; to have this effect 
it must be so worded as to express the final sentence 
of the court on the matters contained in the record 
and to end the case at once, without contemplating 
any further judicial action. 59 Orders for judgment, 
however, have sometimes been deemed sufficient as 
judgments. 60 



Order for an execution. An order of a judge to 
the clerk to issue execution for a specific sum with 
costs has been held equivalent to a judgment, 61 al- 
though there is also authority to the contrary. 62 

6. Judgments as Contracts or Obli- 
gations 

Although Judgments are sometimes regarded as con- 
tracts or debts of record and as obligations enforceable 
by contractual remedies, they are not true contracts or 
debts in a strict sense, and are Included within those 
terms as used in statutes only where such is. the intent 
of the statutes. 

Broadly speaking, a judgment is an obligation for 
the payment of money. 63 Under the classification 
of all obligations into two classes, namely, those 
arising ex contractu and those arising ex delicto, 
and the further division of obligations ex con- 
tractu into simple contracts, contracts under seal 
or specialties, and contracts of record, it has been 
usual to classify judgment obligations as contracts 
of record. 64 Judgments have been declared to be 
contracts, 65 and, likewise, judgments have been de- 



54. Wyo. Greenawalt v, Natrona 
Impr. Co., 92 P. 1008, 16 Wyo. 226. 

33 C.J. p 1054 note 49. 
Interlocutory judgments on demur- 
rer see infra 11. 

55. N.Y. Bentley v. Jones, 4 How. 
Pr. 336, 3 Code Rep. 37. 

33 C.J. p 1054 note 50. 

56. Mo. Pence v. Kansas City 
Laundry Service Co., 59 S.W.2d 
633, 332 Mo. 930. 

Okl. French v. Boles, 261 P. 196, 
128 Okl. 90- In re Baptiste's 
Guardianship, 256 P. 520, 125 Okl. 
184. 

33 C.J. p 1054 note 51. 

57. N.Y. People v. Moroney, 120 NT. 
B. 149, 224 N.Y. 114. 

Wls. In re Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co., 
6 N.W.2d 330, 241 Wis. 394, cer- 
tiorari denied Hinge v. Duel, 63 
S.Ct. 1157, 319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Bd. 
1703. 

33 C.J. p 1054 note 52. 

58. N.Y. In re Kennedy's Estate, 
281 N.Y.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166. 

33 C.J. p 1055 note 53. 

59. U.S. Corpus Juris quoted in G. 
Amsinck & Co. v. Springfield Gro- 
cer Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855. 

Ariz. Brewer v. Morgan, 26*3 P. 630, 
33 Ariz. 225. 

Cal. Bastajian v. Brown, 120 P.2d 9, 
19 Cal.2d 209 Prothero v. Superi- 
or Court of Orange County, 238 P. 
357, 196 Cal. 439 City of Los An- 
geles v. Hannon, 251 P. 247, 79 
CaLApp. 669. 

Okl. Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309, 
168 Okl, 220. 



Tex. Corpus Juris quoted in. Loper 

v. Hosier, Civ.App., 148 S.W.2d 

889, 891, error dismissed, judgment 

correct. 
33 C.J. p 1055 note 54, p 1104 note 

33. 
Purport 

An order for a judgment is not a 
judgment, because it does not pur- 
port of itself to determine the 
rights of the parties. Erlcson v. 
Steiner, 6 P.2d 298, 119 Cal.App. 305 
33 C.J. p 1104 note 32. 

An entry in. the record, ordering 
that plaintiff recover judgment from 
defendant in the amount therein 
stated, was not a judgment, but 
merely an order for judgment. Illi- 
nois Trust & Savings Bank v. Town 
of Roscoe, 194 N.W, 649, 46 S.D. 477. 

Judgment nisi has no more effect 
on parties' rights than verdict, be- 
ing only order for entry of effective 
judgment, absent intervening pro- 
ceedings. Hodgson v. Phippin, 150 
A, 118, 159 Md. 9735 C.J. p 1055 
note 54 [a]. 

60. Ga. Tift v. Keaton, 2 S.E. 690, 
78 Ga. 235. 

N.H. Young v. Dearborn, 27 N.H. 
324. 

61. Ga. Klink v. The Cusseta, 30 
Ga. 504. 

111. Sears v. Sears, 8 111. 47. 

62. Colo. Hoehne v. Trugillo, 1 
Colo. 161, 91 Am.D. 703. 

33 C.J. p 1104 note 36. 

63. La. Holland v. Gross, App., 195 
So. 828. 

N.Y. Weinstein v. McBlligott, 10 N. 

30 



Y.S.2d 320, 256 App.Div. 307, re- 
versed on other grounds 22 NJB. 
2d 171, 281 N.Y. 605. 
33 C.J. p 1056 note 63. 
New obligation 

A judgment is not a contract or 
an obligation 'of a contract but ift a 
new obligation under which antece- 
dent rights are to be enforced. 
Tradesmens Nat. Bank & Trust Co. 
v. Floyd, 39 A.2d 728, 731, 156 Pa. 
Super. 141. 
Recognition of obligation 

Judgment is the recognition of tho 
preSxistence of a debt or obligation. 
Bailey v. Louisiana & N. W. R. 
Co., 105 So. 626, 159 La. 576 Hol- 
land v. Gross, La.App., 195 So. 828. 

64. Iowa. Chader v. Wilkins, 284 
N.W. 183, 226 Iowa 417. 

33 C.J. p 1056 notes 64, 67 [a]. 

65. La. Butler v. Bolinger, 133 So. 
778, 16 La.App. 397. 

33 C.J. p 1056 note 65. 

Judgments by confession see infra 

134 et seq. 

Whether recovered for tort or on 
contract, the judgment becomes a 
debt which defendant is under obli- 
gation to pay, and tho law implies 
a promise or contract on his part 
to pay it. 
Cal. Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, 

53 P.2d 99C, 11 Cal.App.2d ii8. 
N.Y. Gutta -Percha & Rubber Mfg. 

Co. v. City of Houston, 15 N.B. 

402, 108 N.Y. 276, 2 Am.S.R. 412, 

14 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 19, 20 Abb.N.Cas. 

21$. 

Partition Judgment from which 
parties did not appeal could be in- 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



6 



clared to be debts 66 of record, 67 or specialties. 68 It 
is only by a legal fiction, however, and for the pur- 
pose of enforcing the obligation by contractual rem- 
edies, that judgments can be considered as con- 
tracts. 69 Thus an action on a judgment is an ac- 
tion on a contract, irrespective of the nature of 
the original transaction on which the judgment was 
founded, 71 and the same provisional remedies may 
be had as in an action on an express contract. 72 

On the other hand, the essential elements of ev- 
ery true contract, such as competent parties and 
assent, are often wanting in judgments which usu- 
ally are rendered in invitum, and often against in- 
fants, lunatics, or married women. 78 Accordingly it 
has also been declared that judgments are not con- 
tracts 74 or debts 76 in the strict sense of these terms. 

Withing meaning of constitutional and statutory 



provisions. The fact that a judgment is some- 
times regarded as a contract is not conclusive on 
the question whether it is a contract within the 
meaning of that term as used in particular statutory 
or constitutional provisions, and in all such cases 
the intent of such provisions is determinative. 76 
Accordingly, it has been held that a judgment is a 
contract within the meaning of statutes confer- 
ring 77 or limiting 78 the jurisdiction of a court in ac- 
tions on contracts, prohibiting the assignment of 
choses in action not arising out of contract, 79 au- 
thorizing set-offs and counterclaims, 80 making joint 
contracts joint and several, 81 and prohibiting the 
issuance of process against the body in an action on 
a contract. 82 On the other hand, a judgment is not 
a contract or debt within statutes requiring actions 
on contracts to be brought in the name of the real 
party in interest, 88 or making trustees or stockhold- 



terpreted as contract between par- 
ties. Frazier v. Hanlon Gasoline 
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 461, er- 
ror refused. 

Contracts of highest character 
Va. Barnes v. American Fertilizer 
Co., 130 S.E. 902, 144 Va. 692. 

66. Iowa. Chader v. Wilkins, 284 
N.W. 183, 226 Iowa 417. 

Mo. Vitale v. Duerbeck, 92 S.W.2d 

691, 338 Mo. 556. 
33 C.J. p 1056 note 66. 
Judgment for tort 

A judgment rendered on a cause 
of action for a tort is nevertheless 
a debtState v. City of Mound City, 
73 S.W.2d 1017, "325 Mo. 70233 C. 
J. p 1056 note 66 [a], [c]. 

A judgment is an evidence of debt. 
Oil Tool Exchange v. Schuh, 153 
P.2d 976, 67 Cal.App.2d 28833 C.J. 
p 1056 note 66 [e]. 

67. Mo. Corpus Juris cited in State 
v. City of Mound City, 73 S.W.2d 
1017, 1020, 325 Mo. 702. 

33 O.J. p 1056 note 67. 

68. Conn. Barber v. International 
Co., 51 A. 857, 74 Conn. 652, 92 
Am.S.R. 246. 

33 C.J. p 1056 note 68. 

69. R.I. Everett v. Cutler Mills, 
160 A. 924, 52 R.I. 330. 

33 C.J. p 1057 note 69. 

70. Cal. Corpus Juris cited in 
Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, 53 
P.2d 996, 999, 11 Cal.App.2d 268. 

Iowa. Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W. 

183, 226 Iowa 417. 
33 C.J. p 1057 note 71. 
Nature and form of action on judg- 
ment generally see infra 851. 
Assuntpsit or debt 

Instances of quasi or construc- 
tive contracts include judgments on 
which an action of assumpsit or debt 
may be maintained,' according to the 
circumstances, because of a promise 



to pay implied by law. Corpus Ju- 
ris quoted in Caldwell v. Missouri 
State Life Ins. Co., 230 S.W. 566, 
569, 148 Ark. 47413 C.J. p 245 note 
70. 

71. Cal. Corpus Juris cited in 
Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, 53 
P.2d 996, 999, 11 Cal.App.2d 268. 

Iowa. Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W. 

183, 226 Iowa 417. 
Okl. Vaughn v. Osborne, 229 P. 467, 

103 Okl. 59. 
33 C.J. p 1057 note 72. 

72. N.Y. Gutta Percha & Rubber 
Mfg. Co. v. City of Houston, 15 
N.E. 402, 108 N.T. 276, 20 Abb.N. 
Cas. 218, 14 N.T.Civ.Proc. 19. 

33 C.J. p 1057 note 73. 

7a U.S. In re Ransford, Mich., 194 

F. 658, 115 C.C.A. 560. 
33 C.J. p 1057 note 74. 

74. RJ. Everett v. Cutler Mills, 
160 A. 924, 52 R.I. 330. 

33 C.J, p 1057 note 75. 

Consent decree for injunction in- 
volving supervision of changing con- 
ditions should not be considered con- 
tract. U. S. v. Swift & Co., App. 
D.C., 52 S.Ct 460, 286 U.S. 106, 76 
L.Ed. 999. 

75. La. Holland v. Gross, App., 195 
So. 828. 

76. U.S. Metcalf v. City of Water- 
town, Wis., 9 S.Ct. ITS, 128 U.S. 
586, 32 L.Ed. 543. 

33 C.J. p 1058 note 77. 
Judgment as contract or debt with- 
in: 

Constitutional: 

Provisions prohibiting statutes 
impairing obligation of con- 
tracts see Constitutional Law 
350. 

Or statutory provisions prohibit- 
ing imprisonment for debt see 
Arrest 25 a, Executions 
413 a, i 

31 



Rules as to joining causes of ac- 
tion see Actions 83. 

Statute of limitations see infra 
854. 

Statutes regulating rate of inter- 
est see Interest 40. 

77. Cal. Wallace v. JSldredge, 27 
Cal. 498 Stuart v. Lander, 16 Cal. 
372, 76 Am.D. 538. 

Jurisdiction of courts generally see 
Courts 242. 

78. N.Y. Crane v. Crane, 19 N.Y.S. 
691. 

79. Mo. Corpus Juris cited in 
State v. City of Mound City, 78 
S.W.2d 1017, 1020, 325 Mo. 702. 

33 C.J. p 1058 note 83. 
Assignment of judgments see infra 
512. 

80. U.S. Rose v. Northwest Fire & 
Marine Ins. Co., C.C.Or., 71 F. 
649. 

33 C.J. p 1058 note 84. 
Contrary view 

(1) A contrary rule has been fol- 
lowed in Illinois. Rae v. Hulbert, 17 
111. 572. 

(2) It has been said, however, that 
"the weight of authority is against 
the view taken by the supreme court 
of Illinois." Rose v. Northwest Fire 
& Marine Ins. Co., C.C.Or., 71 F. 649, 
651. 

81. U.S. Belleville Sav. Bank v. 
Winslow, C.C.MO., 30 F. 488. 

33 C.J. p 1058 note 87. 

82. Vt Stoughton v. Barrett, 20 
Vt. 385 Sawyer v. Vilas, 19 Vt. 
43. 

!. Ala. Wolffe v. Eberlein, 74 Ala. 

99, 49 Am.R. 809. 
33 C.J. p 1058 note 82. 
Plaintiffs in .action on judgment see 

infra 857. 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



ers of a corporation liable for its debts, 84 or within 
the meaning of married women's acts, 85 

7. Judgments as Assignments or Con- 
veyances 

In the absence of a statute to the contrary, a Judg- 
ment is not an assignment and ordinarily Is not effectual 
to pass the title to land. 

A judgment is not an assignment, 86 even when 
entered on confession, 87 although, by statute, judg- 
ments suffered under particular circumstances may 
operate as an assignment for the benefit of credi- 
tors. 88 A judgment is not effectual to pass the title 
to land, 89 apart from statutory provision to that 
effect, 90 unless it substantially undertakes to vest 
title, as by declaring that it shall operate as a deed 
of conveyance, in a case where the court has juris- 
diction to affect the title to land by a judgment or 
decree operating in rem. 91 

8. Classification and Kinds 

Judgments have been classified with reference to 
the state of the pleadings at the time of pronouncement, 
and the proper style of the Judgment may also depend 
on the form of the action. 

Under common-law practice, judgments usually 
are classified with reference to the state of the 
pleadings at the time judgment is pronounced, un- 
der which classification they fall into several basic 
groups. 92 The proper style of the judgment may al- 



so depend on the form of the action, immemorial 
custom having prescribed the formula of words to 
be employed in the judgments rendered in certain 
classes of proceedings. 93 

The form of judgment granted on determination 
of issues of law or fact is discussed infra 9, 10. 
Numerous particular kinds of judgments are defined 
infra this section, and there may be found elsewhere 
in other connections a consideration of judgments 
by confession, or judgments by cognovit actionem 
and judgments by confession relicta verificatione, 
discussed infra 134-137, judgments on consent, 
offer, or admission, discussed infra 173-186, 
judgments by default or nil dicit, discussed infra 
187, judgments of dismissal, discontinuance, non- 
suit, or retraxit, discussed in Dismissal and Non- 
suit 1-5, judgments non obstantc vcredicto, or 
judgments notwithstanding verdict, discussed infra 
59-61, judgments mine pro tune, discussed infra 
117-121, and judgments on the pleadings, dis- 
cussed in the C.J.S. title Pleading 511, also 49 C 
J. p 779 note 29-p 780 note 48. 

Irregular or erroneous judgment. An irregular 
judgment is one entered contrary to the course of 
the court, that is, contrary to the method of pro- 
cedure and practice allowed by law in some mate- 
rial respect. 94 An erroneous judgment is one ren- 
dered according to the course and practice of the 
court, but contrary to law. 95 



84. U.S. Chase v. Curtis, N.Y., 5 
S.Ct. 554, 113 U.S. 452, 28 L.Ed. 
1038. 

Cal. Larrabee v. Baldwin, 35 Cal. 
155. 

85. N.Y. White v. Wood, 2 N.Y.S. 
673, 49 Hun 381, 15 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 
187. 

86. Pa. Breading, v. Boggs, 20 Pa. 
33 37 

33 c'.J. p 1059 note 95. 

87. Pa, Breading v. Boggs, supra, 
Judgment by confession see infra 

134-172. 

88. Ky. Laughlin v. Georgetown 
First Nat. Bank, 47 S.W. 623, 103 

.Ky. 742, 20 Ky.L. 354. 
33 C.J. p 1059 note,97. 

89. N.C.-^Proctor v. Ferebee, 36 N- 
C. 143, 36 Am.D. 34. 

33C.J. p 1059 note 98. 

90. N.J. Price v. Sisson, 13 N.J. 
,Eq. 168. 

KG. Morris v. White, 2 S.E. 254, 96 
N.C. 91. 

91. Mich. Simmons v. Conklin, 88 
N.W. 625, 129 Mich. 190. 

33 C.J. P 1059 note 1. 

92. U.S. Derby v. Jacques, C.C. 
Mass., 7 F.Cas.No.3817, 1 Cliff. 425. 

33 C,J. p 1059 note 3. 



Judgments fall into four groups 

under Blacksione's classification: 
First, where the facts are agreed by 
the parties, and the law is deter- 
mined by the court, as in the case of 
judgment on a demurrer; second, 
where the law is admitted by the 
parties and the facts are in dispute, 
as in the case of judgments on ver- 
dicts; third, where the facts and law 
are admitted by defendant, as in 
judgments by confession and de- 
fault; fourth, where plaintiff is con- 
vinced that the facts, or the law, 
or both, are not sufficient to support 
his action, as in judgments of non- 
suit, retraxit, and discontinuance. 
Derby v. Jacques, C.C.Mass., 7 F. 
Cas.No.3,817, 1 Cliff. 425. 
Judgment against plaintiff 

At common law a judgment 
against plaintiff was on a retraxit, 
non pros, nonsuit, nolle prosequi, 
discontinuance or a judgment on an 
issue found by jury in favor of de- 
fendant or on demurrer. Steele v. 
Beaty, 2 S.E.2d 854, 215 N.C. 680. 

93. 111. -Jackson v. Haskell, 3 111, 

565. 

33 -C.J. p 1059 note 4. 
Debt 
111. Jackson v. Haskell, supra. 

32 



94. N.M. -EAly v. McGahon, 21 P. 
2d 84, 87, 37 N.M. 240. 

N.C. Duplin County v. Ksssscll, 27 

S.E.2d 448, 450, 223 N.C. 631 

Wynne v. Conrad, 17 S.E.2d 514, 

518, 220 N.C. 355 Crowdcr v. 

Stiers, 1 S.E.2d 353, 355, 216 N. 

C. 123 Dall v. Hawkins, 189 S.E. 

774, 211 N.C. 283 Hood ex rel. 

Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. v. 

Stewart, 184 S.E. 36, 40, 209 N. 

C. 424 Duffer v. Branson, 125 S.E. 

619, 620, 188 N.C. 789. 
33 C.J. p 814 note 634 C.J. p 508 

note 3. 
Irregular or erroneous judgment as 

void or voidable see infra 19. 
Operation and effect of void and 

voidable judgments see infra 

449-452. 

95. N.M. Ealy v. McG'ahen, 21 P*2d 
84, 87, 37 N.M. 246, 

N.C. Wynne v. Conrad, 17 S.E.2d 
514, 518, 220 N.C. 355 Dail v. 
Hawkins, 189 S.E. 774, 211 N.C. 283 
Hood ex rel. Citizens' Bank & 
Trust Co. v. Stewart, 184 S.E. 36, 
40, 209 N.C. 424 Herbert B. New- 
ton & Co. v. Wilson Furniture Mfg. 
Co., 174 S.E. 449, 450, 206 N.C. 533 
Wellons v. Lassiter, 157 S.B. 
434, 436, 200 N.C. 474 Finger v. 
Smith, 133 S.E. 186, 187, 191 N.C. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



A judgment on the merits is one rendered after 
argument and investigation and when it is deter- 
mined such party has a right, as distinct from a 
judgment rendered on some formal or merely tech- 
nical fault or by default without trial.** 

Judgment nihil capiat per breve or per bittam 
is the form of judgment against plaintiff in an ac- 
tion either in bar or in abatement; literally, "that 
he taka nothing by his writ or declaration." 97 

Judgment nisi. At common law, a judgment nisi 
was one entered on the return of the nisi prius rec- 
ord, which, according to the terms of the postea, 
was to become absolute unless otherwise ordered by 
the court within the first four days of the next suc- 
ceeding term. 98 

Judgment of non pros, or non prosequitur is a 
judgment of the court on motion of defendant in 
a civil action in case plaintiff do.es not file his decla- 
ration or replication in due time. 99 
i 

Judgment quod bitta cassetur is the common-law 
form of judgment sustaining a plea in abatement 
where the proceeding is by bill, that is, by a capias 
instead of by original writ; literally, "that the bill 
be quashed." 1 

Judgment quod eat sine die is the old form of a 



judgment for defendant; 2 literally "that he go 
without day."8 

Judgment quod recuperet is a judgment in favor 
of plaintiff rendered when he has prevailed on an 
issue in fact or an issue in law other than one aris- 
ing on a dilatory plea.* 

Judgment respondeat ouster is a form of judg- 
ment for plaintiff on an issue in law arising on a 
dilatory plea. 6 The judgment is that defendant 
answer over, and, since it is not a final judgment, 
the pleading is resumed and the action proceeds. 5 

A punitive judgment is one the purpose of which 
is to inflict a penalty or punishment as distinguish- 
ment from one granting a remedy. 7 

A self-executing judgment is a judgment that ac- 
complishes by its mere entry the result sought, and 
requires no further exercise of the power of the 
court to accomplish its purpose.* 



9- 



Judgment on Issue of Law 



A judgment on a demurrer to pleadings Is on an 
Issue of law and Is the same as It would have been on 
an issue of fact between the parties, but a judgment 
sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a plea In abate- 
ment Is not of a final nature. 

When the pleadings terminate in a demurrer on 
either side, an issue of law is presented, and a judg- 
ment on such demurrer is on an issue of law. 9 On 



818 Duffer v. Branson, 125 S.E. 

619, 620, 188 N.C. 789. 
34 C.J. p 508 note 421 C.J. p 822 

note 86. 

When court lias Jurisdiction of the 
subject matter of the action and of 
the parties, a judgment giving to 
one of the parties more than he 
in entitled to receive is an erroneous 
judgment. McLeod v. Hartman, 253 
P. 1094, 1095, 123 Kan. 110. 

96. Xy. Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 
61 S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21. 

97. Black L.D. 

98. Black L.D. 

33 C.J. p 1059 note 4 [b]. 

It is otherwise defined as "one 
that is to be valid unless something 
else should be dene within a given 
time to defeat it." U. S. v. Win- 
stead, D.C.N.6., 12 F. 50, 51, 4 
Hughes 464. 

39. N.C. Steele v. Beaty. 2 S.B.2d 

854, 856, 215 N.C. 680. 
Pa. Beverldge v. Teeter, 14 Pa.Dist. 

& Co. 498, 45 York Leg.Rec, 16, 26 

Luz.Lieg.Reg. 100. 
33 C.J. p 1061 note 26. 
Nolle prosegnl dijrtingrnished 

(1) Judgment of non pros, is not 
to be confused with a nol. pros, or 
nolle prosequi, by which plaintiff or 
the attorney for .the state voluntari- 

49 0. J.S.-3 



ly declares that he will not further 
prosecute a suit or indictment, or a 
particular count in either. Common- 
wealth v. Casey, 12 Allen, Mass., 214, 
21833 C.J. p 1061 note 26 [bj. 

(2) "Nolle proseaui" defined see 
Dismissal and Nonsuit 9 4. 

1. Black L.D. 

33 C.J. p 1060 note 15 [a]. 

2. Del. Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Del. 
369, 374. 

N*.J. Hale v, Lawrence, 22 N.JXaw 
72, 80. 

Form of judgment generally see in- 
fra 5 62. 

8. Black L.D., sub verbo "Sine." 

4. Ky. Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 
61 S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21. 

As proper judgment on issues of law 
or fact see infra 55 9, 10. 

5. Black L.D. 

33 C.J. p 1060 note 13 M. 

6. U.S. (Philadelphia & R. Coal & 
Iron Co. v. Kever, N.T., 260 F. 534, 
536, 171 C.C.A. 318, certiorari de- 
nied 40 S.Ct 13, 250 U.S. 665, 63 
L.Bd. 1197. 

7. U.S. In re Merchants' Stock & 
Grain Co., Mo., 32 S.Ct. 339, 223 
U.S. 639, 56 L.Ed. 584 In re Chris- 
tensen Engineering Co., N.Y., 24 S. 
Ct. 729, 194 U.S. 458, 48 L.Ed. 1072. 

33 



Ga. Hancock v. Kennedy, 95 S.EL 

735, 22 Ga.App. 144. 
& Cal. Feinberg v. Doe, 92 P.2d 

640, 642, 14 Cal.2d 24. 
Similarly expressed 

(1) One where no process is re- 
quired in order to fully execute it. 
Jayne v. Drorbaugh, 17 N.W. 433, 
436, 63 Iowa 71157 C.J. p 108 note 
87. 

(2) One which has an intrinsic ef- 
fect. Dulin v. Pacific Wood & Coal 
Co., 33 P. 123, 124, 98 Cal. 304. 

(3) One which is injunctions! and 
prohibitive or which adjudicates the 
title to property or fixes the status 
of a party. Haddlck v. Polk County 
Dist Ct., 145 N.W. 943, 944, 164 Iowa 
41757 C.J. p 109 note 91. 

(4) Other similar definitions see 
57 C.J. p 109 notes 89, 90. 

9.- Wis. Douville v. Merrlck, 25 

Wis. 688. 
Judgment on: 
Demurrer to: 

Evidence see the C.J.S. title Tri- 
al 236, also 64 C.J. p 889 
note 46-p 390 note 58. 
Pleadings see the C.J.S. title 
Pleading 274, also 49 C.J. p 
461 note 94-p 465 note 81. 
Pleadings see the C.J.S. title 
Pleading S 511, also 49 C.J. p 
779 note 29-p 780 note 48. 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



demurrer to any of the pleadings which go to the 
action, the judgment for either party is the same as 
it would have been on an issue of fact joined on 
the same pleading, and found in favor of the same 
party. 10 At common law the judgment for plaintiff 
on a demurrer to any of the pleadings in chief is 
quod recuperet, that is, that he recover; 11 that for 
defendant is quod eat sine die, that is, that he go 
hence without day. 12 As is discussed in the CJ.S. 
title Pleading 274, also 33 C.J. p 1060 notes 10-12, 
and 49 C.J. p 461 note 4-p 465 note 81, the judg- 
ment is final unless leave to amend or to plead over 
is given, but, since the granting of such leave is 
almost a matter of course, it is not now usual to 
enter final judgment on demurrer unless the party 
fails or refuses to amend or to plead over, as the 
case may be. 

On demurrer to a plea in abatement, if the de- 
murrer is sustained, the judgment is not final but 
is respondeat ouster, that is, that he answer over; 13 
final judgment is rendered only on failure to plead 
further. 1 * If the demurrer or other objection is 
overruled, and the dilatory plea is held sufficient in 



law, the judgment is that the writ or declaration be 
quashed, 15 but this rule of the common law has 
been changed by some statutes permitting plaintiff 
after overruling of his demurrer to take issue on 
the facts. 1 * 

10. Judgment on Issue of Fact 

Final Judgment on an issue of fact, if for the plain- 
tiff, is that he recover, but Judgment for the defendant 
on a fact Issue raised in a plea In abatement is merely 
that the writ or declaration be quashed. 

The final judgment on an issue of fact, taken on 
the declaration, or a plea in bar, if for plaintiff, is 
quod recuperet, that is, that he recover j 1 * if for 
defendant, the judgment is nihil capiat per breve or 
per billam, that is, that he take nothing by his decla- 
ration or writ. 18 Where an issue of fact on a plea 
in abatement is found in favor of defendant, the 
judgment must be cassetur breve or billa, that is, 
that the writ or declaration be quashed, as where a 
demurrer to such a 'plea is decided in his favor ; the 
judgment cannot be nihil capiat, or on the merits, 
because the plea is not in bar of the action. 19 



NX N.J. Hale v. Lawrence, 22 N.J. 

Law 72. 
JT.Y. Nachod v. Hindley, 103 1T.Y.S. 

801, 118 App.Div. 658. 

11. Wis. Douvllle v. Merrlck, 25 
Wis. 688. 

33 C.J. p 1059 note 8. 
"Judgment quod recuperet" defined 
see supra 5 8. 

12. HI. People, for Use of O'Far- 
rell v. Johnson, 215 IlLApp. 580. 

33 C.J. p 1060 note 9. 

"Judgment quod eat sine die" defined 

see supra 8. 
Judgment for costs 

Where the petition failed to state 
a cause of action, the court did not 
err In sustaining a general demurrer 
thereto and in rendering a Judgment 
against plaintiff for the cost of the 
action. Franks v. Adolph Kempner 
Co., 217 P. 848, 91 Okl. 289. 
Question of abatement 

Where demurrer, as may some- 
times be done, is treated as plea in 
abatement on ground that action is 
prematurely brought, judgment 
should show that decision was based 
on Question of abatement, otherwise 
it will be presumed to be a decision 
on merits. Smith v. City of Daven- 
port, 201 N.W. 47, 198 Iowa 1295. 
13. Ala. Cravens v. Bryant 3 Ala. 

278 State v. Allen, 1 Ala. 442. 
Ark. Fulcher v. Lyon, 4 Ark. 445 

Renner v. Reed, 3 Ark. 339. 
Conn. Nichols v. Seacock, 1 Root 
286 Fitch v. Lothrop, 1 Root 192 
DeL Spencer v. Dutton, 1 Harr. 75, 
HL Branigan v. Rose, 8 111. 123, fol- 
lowed In 8 111. 130 Bradshaw v 



Morehouse, 6 111. 395 F. H. Earl 

Mfg. Co. v. Summit Lumber Co., 

125 IlLApp. 391. 
Ind. Clarke v. Kite, 5 Blackf. 167 

Atkinson v. State Bank, 5 Blackf. 

84 Lambert v. Lagow, 1 Blackf. 

388. 
Ky. Hay v. Arberry, 1 J.J.Marsh. 95 

Moore v. Morton, 1 Bibb 234. 
Me. McKeen v. Parker, 51 Me. 389. 
Mass. Parks v. Smith, 28 N.B. 1044, 

155 Mass. 26. 
Miss. Drane v. Board of Police of 

Madison County, 42 Miss. 264 Lee 

v. Dozier, 40 ^iss. 477 Besancon 

v. Shirley, 17 'Miss. 457 Lang v. 

Fatheree, 15 Miss. 404 Beaty v. 

Harkey, 10 Miss. 563. 
Mo. Wilson v. Atwood, 4 Mo. 366. 
N.H. Trow v. Messer, 32 N.H. 361. 
N.X Garr v. Stokes, 16 N.J.Law 403. 
N.C. Casey v. Harrison, 13 N.C. 244. 
Pa. Bauer v. Roth, 4 Rawle 83 

McCabe v. U. S., 4 Watts 325. 
Tenn. Straus v. Weil, 5 Coldw. 120 

Rainey & Henderson v. Sanders, 

4 Humphr. 447 McBee v. State, 

Meigs 122. 
Tex. Ritter v. Hamilton, 4 Tex. 325. 
Wis. Anderson v. Rountree, 1 Pinn. 

115. 

33 C.J. p 1060 note 13. 
"Judgment respondeat -ouster" de- 
fined see supra 8. 

. There are exceptions to the rule 

where the plea contains matter 
pleadable only in abatement but 
commences or concludes in bar, or 
where matter in abatement is plead- 
ed puis darrein continuance. In 
such cases the judgment is final. 
Turner v. Carter, 1 Head, Tenn., 520. 

34 



14. Ala. Massey v. Walker, 8 Ala. 
167. 

15. Del. Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Del. 
369. 

49 C.J. p 244 note 7. 
'Judgment quod billa cassetur" de- 
fined see supra 8. 
Suit prematurely "brought 

Trial court, after sustaining plea 
in abatement on 'ground that suit 
had been prematurely brought, com- 
mitted error in rendering judgments 
that plaintiff take nothing by the 
suit, since such judgments without 
restrictions as to future prejudice 
to relitigate the same subject matter 
would afford a basis for interposing 
a plea of "res judicata" should such 
suit be refiled in the future and 
proper judgment was one of dismis- 
sal which would preclude an adjudi- 
cation on the merits. Reed v. Sta- 
ley, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 851. 

16. Ala. Chilton v. Harbin, 6 Ala. 
171. 

17. U.S. National Ace. Soc. v. Spi- 
ro, Tenn., 78 F..774, 24 C.C.A. 334, 
certiorari denied 18 S.Ct 944, 168 
U.S. 708, 42 L.Ed. 1211. . 

33 C.J. p 1060 note 18. 
"Judgment quod recuperet" defined 
see supra 8. 

18. Black L.D. 

19. Fla. McLendon v. Lurton- 
Hardaker Co., 91 So. 113. 83 Fla. 
263. 

33 C.J. p 1060 note 20. 
Dismissal of cause 

When a plea of abatement Is sus- 
tained to plaintiff's action, the gen- 
eral order is one dismissing the 



49 0. J. S. 



JUDGMENTS 



11 



Where, however, the verdict is against defendant, 
the judgment for plaintiff is quod recuperet, or that 
he recover, and not respondeat ouster. 20 

11. Final and Interlocutory Judg- 
ments 

a. In general 

b. When judgment becomes final 

a. In General 

A final judgment Is one which disposes of the cause 
both as to the subject matter and the parties as far as 
the court has power to dispose of It, while an interlocu- 
tory Judgment Is one which reserves or leaves some fur- 
ther question or direction for future determination; but 



whether a Judgment Is flnat depends somewhat on the 
purpose for which, and the standpoint from which, It Is 
being considered. 

Judgments may generally be classified as either 
final or interlocutory. 21 In determining whether a 
judgment is "final," no hard and fast definition or 
test applicable to all situations can be given, since 
finality depends somewhat on the purpose for 
which, and the standpoint from which, the judgment 
is being considered, and it may be final for one pur- 
pose and not for another. 22 Generally, however, a 
final judgment is one which disposes of the cause 
both as to the subject matter and the parties as far 
as the court has power to dispose of it, 23 while an 



cause and the dismissal order is ef- 
fective only as long: as the cause of 
abatement continues to exist. Zar- 
sky v. Moss, Teac.Civ.App., 193 S.W. 
2d 245. 
Necessity of trial on facts 

Disposition, on pleas in abatement, 
of claims based on negligence with- 
out a trial on the facts was error. 
Rose v. Baker, 183 S.W.2d 438, 143 
Tex. 438. 

ao . 111. F. H. Earl Mfg. Co. v. Sum- 
mit Lumber Co., 125 IlLApp. 391. 
Miss. Coleman v. Bowman, 99 So. 
465, 135 Miss. 137 McNeely v. 
Tazoo & M. V. R. Co.. 81 So. 641, 
119 Miss. 897. 
33 C.J. P 1060 note 2149 C.J. P 244 

note 13. 
Liability established 

The court's decision overruling de- 
fendant's plea in abatement on fact 
issue establishes defendant's liabil- 
ity and deprives it of trial on mer- 
its, so as to entitle plaintiff to final 
judgment, unless Judge permits de- 
fendant to answer over by special 
order or action equivalent to such 
order. Krinsky v. Stevens Coal 
Sales Co., 36 N.B.2d 411, 309 Mass. 
528. 

81. Cal. Bakewell v. Bakewell, 180 
P.2d 975, 21 Cal.2d 224. 

Okl. Consumers' Oil & Refining Co. 
v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 91 Okl. 282. 

Tenn. Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170 S. 
W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232. 

Final and interlocutory decrees see 
Equity 582. 

Finality of determination as affect- 
ing conclusiveness of adjudication 
see infra 699. 

22. Cal. Anderson v. Great Repub- 
lic Life Ins. Co., 106 P.2d 75, 41 
Cal.App.2d 181 Howard v. How- 
ard, 261 P. 714, 716, 87 CaLApp. 
20. 

111. Brauer Machine & Supply Co., 
for Use of Bituminous Casualty 
Corporation v. Parkhill Truck Co., 
50 N.B.2d 836, 383 111. 569, 148 
A.L..R. 1208. 



Different meaningi 

Although "final" is frequently used 
with "judgment" to distinguish from 
interlocutory orders or Judgments 
in the same court, "final judgment" 
also describes a determination effec- 
tive to conclude further proceedings 
.n the same cause by appeal or oth- 
erwise, especially where time within 
which to act is limited to run from 
"final judgment". Northwestern 
Wisconsin Blec. Co. v. Public Serv- 
ice Commission, 22 N.W.2d 472, 248 
Wis. 479. 

23. Mich. Wurzer v. Geraldine, 256 

N.W. 439, 441, 268 Mich. 286. 
Okl. Consolidated School Dist No. 
15 of Texas County v. Green, 71 
P.2d 712, 714, 180 Okl, 567. 
Pa. Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v. 
Keystone Coal & Coke Co., 118 A. 
565, 566, 275 Pa. 40. 
Tenn. Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170 S. 

W.2d 917, 920, 26 TennJVpp. 232. 
Tex. Lubell v. Button, Civ.App., 164 

S.W.2d 41, 44, error refused. 
Utah. Hartford Accident & Indem- 
nity Co. v. Clegg, 135 P.2d 919, 91 
103 Utah 414. 
Vt. Corpus Juris cited in State v. 
Green Mountain Power Corpora- 
tion, 28 A.2d 698, 699. 
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30. 

The general test for determining 
whether a judgment, is "final" is 
that, when no issue is left for future 
consideration except fact of compli- 
ance or noncompliance with terms of 
the first decree, decree is final, but, 
where anything further in the nature 
of judicial action on the part of the 
court is essential to a final deter- 
mination o? the rights of the par- 
ties, the decree is "interlocutory". 
Bakewell v. Bakewell, 130 P.2d 975, 
978, 21 CaUd 224 Lyon v. Goss 
123 P.2d 11, 17, 19 Cal.2d 659. 
Similar definitions 

(1) A "final decree" is one in 
which nothing in the case is re- 
served by the court for further de- 
cision. Sample v. Romine, 10 So.2d 
346, 193 Minn. 706. 

(2) A "final judgment" is one that 

35 



brings suit to a conclusion and bars 
recovery in any other litigation be- 
.ween the same parties on the same 
slaim. Ranallo v. Hinman Bros. 
Const. Co., D.C.Ohio, 49 F.Supp. 920, 
924, affirmed, C.C.A., Buckeye Union 
Casualty Co. v. Kanallo, 135 F.2d 
921, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 47, 
320 U.S. 745, 88 L.Ed. 442. 

(3) A "final judgment" is one 
which finally disposes of parties' 
rights either on entire controversy 
or on some definite and separate 
branch thereof. Brauer Machine & 
Supply Co., for Use of Bituminous 
Casualty Corporation v. Parkhill 
Truck Co., 50 N.B.2d 836, 840, 383 111. 
569, 148 A.L.R. 1208 General Elec- 
tric Co. v. Gellman Mfg. Co., 48 N.B. 
2d 451, 318 Ill.App. 644. 

(4) A "final judgment" is one 
which determines and disposes of 
merits by declaring that plaintiff is 
or is not entitled to recover by a 
remedy chosen. Irving Trust Co, v* 
Kaplan, Fla., 20 So.2d 351, 354. 

(5) A judgment is a "final" OP 
'definitive Judgment" when it set- 
tles the issues presented in the main 
controversy to such an extent that 
it will have the force of res judicata 
if it is not reversed on appeal. 
Metairie Bank in Liquidation v. 
Lecler, La.App., 4 So.2d 573, 575. 

(6) "Final judgments" are such 
as at once put an end to the action 
by declaring that plaintiff has or has 
not entitled himself to recover. 
Ky. Faulkner v. Faulkner, 110 S.W. 

2d 465, 470, 270 Ky. 693. 
Pa. Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v. 
Keystone Coal & Coke Co., 118 A. 
565, 275 Pa. 40. 

(7) There must be findings of feet 
and conclusions of law to constitute 
a "final judgment" on the merits. 
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co, 
v. Clegg, 135 P.2d 919, 922, 103 Utah 
414. 

(8) Other definitions. 

U.S. In re Roney, C.C.A.Ind. t 139 
F.2d 175, 177 Karl Kiefer MacJb. 
Co. v. U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co., 



11 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.& 



interlocutory judgment is one which does not so 
dispose of the cause, but reserves or leaves some 



further question or direction for future determina- 
tion. 2 * Under the definition of a judgment as the 



l., 108 F.2d 469. 470 Ross 
v. International Life Ins. Co., CO. 
A.Tenn., 24 F.2d 345, 346 G. Am- 
sinck & Co. v. Springfield Grocer 
Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855. 858 
Charles Needing- Trucking Co. v. 
U. S., D.C.N.J., 29 F.Supp. 637, 544. 

Ala, Gandy v. Hauler, 16 So.2d 305, 
307, 245 Ala. 167. 

Cal. Swarthout v. Gentry* App., 167 
P.2d 501, 503 Vallera v. Vallera, 
148 P.2d 694, 696, 64 Cal. App. 2d 
266 Potvin v. Pacific Greyhound 
Lines, 20 P.2d 129, WO, 130 Cal. 
App. 610. 

Kan. Smith v. Power, 127 P.2d 452, 
454, 155 Kan. 612. 

Ky. Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 
S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. ,21 Cau- 
dill Coal Co. v. Charles Rosenheim 
& Co., 258 S.W. 315, 316, 201 Ky. 
758 Blackburn v. Blackburn, 254 
S.W. 915, 917, 200 Ky. 310. 

Me. Sawyer v. White, 132 A. 421, 
422, 125 Me. 206. 

Mich. Wurzer v. Geraldine, 256 N. 
W. 439, 446, 268 Mich. 286. 

Miss. Johnson v. Mississippi Power 
Co., 196 So. 642, 643, 189 Miss. 
67. 

N.C. Hanks v. Southern "Public Util- 
ities Co., 186 S.E. 252, 257, 210 N. 
C. 312 Never Fail Land Co. v. 
Cole, 149 S.B. 585, 588, 197 N.C. 
452. 

Ohio. State ex rel. Curran v. 
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142 
Ohio St 107 Vida v. Parsley, 
App., 47 N.B.2d 663, 665. 

Okl. Methvin v. Methvin, 127 P.2d 
186, 188, 191 Okl. 177. 

Pa. Sundheim v. Beaver County 
Building Loan Ass'n, 14 A.2d 
349, 351, 140 Pa.Super. 529. 

Tex. Lanier v. Parnell. Civ.App., 
190 S.W.2d 421, 423 City of Gil- 
mer v. Moyer, Civ. App., 181 S.W. 
2d 1020, 1022 Garcia v. Jones, 
Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 925, 926, er- 
ror dismissed, judgment correct 
Railroad Commission v. Humble 
Oil & Refining- Co., Civ.App., 119 
S.W.2d 728, error refused Holmes 
v. Klein, Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 171, 
172, error dismissed Dallas Cof- 
fee & Tea Co. v. Williams, Civ. 
App., 45 S.W.2d 724, 728, error dis- 
missed. 

Va. Williams v. Dean, 9 S.E.2d 327, 
329, 175 Va. 435. 

25 C.J. p 1130 notes 54-56 33 C.J. 
p 1061 note 30 [a]. 

Synonymous with, "final determina- 
tion" 
"Final Judgment" Is synonymous 

with "final determination,*' which. 

means the final settling of the rights* 

of the parties to the action beyond 

all appeal. Quarture v. Allegheny 

County, 14 A-2d 676 t 578, 141 Pa, 

Super. 356, J 



held 

(1) Judgment expressly or by nee* 
essary implication disposing of all 
parties and issues Is final. Southern 
Pac. Co. v. TJlmer, Tex.Com. App., 286 
S.W. 193 Duke v. Gilbreath, Tex. 
Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324, error dis- 
missed Adcock v. Shell, Tex.Civ. 
App., 273 S.W. $00. 

(2) A judgment may be "final" 
whether it is based on a determina- 
tion of a question of law or a ques- 
tion of fact. McWilliams v. Black- 
ard, COAJVrk., 96 F.2d 43. 

(3) Judgment may be final al- 
though It fails to award writ of exe- 
cution for its enforcement. Reed v. 
Bryant, Tex.Clv.App., 291 S.W. 605. 

(4) Judgment requiring defendant 
to pay amount into court to await 
determination of conflicting claims 
in another court was, as between the 
parties, final. Graham Refining Co. 
v. Graham Oil Syndicate, tex.Civ. 
App., 262 S.W. 142. 

(5) A judgment dismissing cause 
as to one defendant after giving 
peremptory direction to find for such 
defendant and rendering judgment 
for plaintiff against another defend- 
ant on verdict for plaintiff was final 
disposition of issues as to former 
defendant. Newdiger v. Kansas 
City, 114 S.W.2d 1047, 342 Mo. 252. 

(6) Where a plaintiff's alternative 
plea was not on trial and was effec- 
tually disposed of by award, on her 
principal cause of action, judgment 
predicated on ultimate issues raised 
by both pleading and evidence was a 
"final judgment." Connor v. Buford, 
Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 592, error 
dismissed, judgment correct. 

(7) Other judgments. 

U.S. Ashwander v. Tennessee Val- 
ley Authority, D.C.Ala., 19 *F.Supp. 
190, reversed on other grounds, 
C.C.A., Alabama Power Co. v. Ten- 
nessee Valley Authority, 92 F.2d 
412. 

Cal. Ochoa v. McCush, 2 P.2d 357, 
216 Cal. 426 Griffith v. List, 9 P. 
2d 529, 122 Cal. App. 125. 

111. Gunn v. Brltt, 39 N.E.2d 76, 78, 
313. ULApp. 13. 

Ky. Struve v. Lebus, 136 S.W.2d 
554, 281 Ky. 407 Crawford v. Rid- 
dle, 45 S.W.2d 463, 241 Ky. 839 
First State Bank v. Thacker*s 
Adm'x, 284 S.W. 1020, 215 Ky. 186 
Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114, 
203 Ky. 699. 

La. Castelluccio v. Cloverland Dairy 
Products Co., 115 So. 796, 165 La. 
606, conformed to 8 1/a.App. 723 
Spence v. Spence, 107 So. 294, 
160 La. 430. 

Mo. Chance v. Franke, 153 S.W.2d 
378. 348 Mo. 402 State ex reL 

36 



Maple v. Mulloy, 15 S.W.2d 809, 
322 Mo. 281. 

N.C. Nash v. City of Monroe, 158 
S.B. 384, 200 N.C. 729. 

Okl. Davis v. Baum. 133 P.2d 889, 
192 Okl. 85 Consolidated School 
Dist. No. 15 of Texas County v. 
Green, 71 P.2d 712, 714, 180 Okl. 
567 Consumers' Oil & Refining 
Co. v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 91 Okl. 
282. 

S.D. Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen- 
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630. 

Tex. Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App., 
181 S.W.2d 312 Doornbos v. Loon- 
ey, Civ. App., 159 S.W.2d 155, error 
refused Runyon v. Valley Pub. 
Co., Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 521, error 
refused Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ. 
App., 70 S.W.2d 203 Bell v. Rog- 
ers, Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 878 
Stokes Bros. & Co. v. Kramer, Civ. 
App., 44 S.W.2d 822 Duke v. Gil- 
breath, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324, 
error dismissed Phillips v. Jones, 
Civ.App., 283 S.W. 298. 

Utah. Logan City v. Utah Power & 
Light Co., 16 P.2d 1097, 86 Utah 
340, adhered to 44 P.2d 698. 86 
Utah 354. 

33 C.J. p 1061 note 30 [el. 

34. Cal. Swarthout.v. Gentry, App., 

167 P.2d 501, 503. 
Okl. Consumers' Oil & Refining Co. 

v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 489, 91 Okl. 

282. 
Pa. Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v. 

Keystone Coal & Coke 'Co., 118 A. 

565, 566, 275 Pa. 40. 
Tex. In re Greer, TexCiv.App., 41 

S.W.2d 351. 
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30. 
Similar definitions ' 

(1) An "interlocutory decree" is 
one that Is rendered in the progress 
of a lawsuit, or between the com- 
mencement and the end of the suit. 
In re Byrne, 191 So. 729, 730, 193 
La. 566. 

(2) It is a judgment made for 
purpose of ascertaining some matter 
of fact or law, preparatory to a 
final decree. Vineyard v. Vineyard, 
170 S.W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232. 

(3) An "Interlocutory judgment'* 
Is one which determines some pre- 
liminary or subordinate point or 
plea, or settles some step, question 
or default arising in the progress 
of the cause, but does not adjudicate 
the ultimate rights of the parties. 
Consumers' Oil & Refinkig Co. v. Bll- 
by, 217 P. 484, 489, 91 Okl. 282. 

(4) A judgment which reserves 
for adjudication by the court at a 
later date some Issues between the 
parties to the action and only .par- 
tially or incompletely disposes of 
the parties or issues is an "inter- 
locutory judgment" Manley v. Ra- 



49 O.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



11 



final determination of the rights of the parties, as 
discussed supra 1, there can be no such thing as 
an interlocutory judgment in the strictly technical 
sense of the term ; such interlocutory judgments are 
in fact interlocutory orders. 26 The term "inter- 
locutory judgment" is, however, a convenient one 
to indicate the determination of steps or proceed- 
ings in a cause preliminary to final judgment, and 
in such sense the term is in constant and general 
use even in code states. 26 In determining whether 
a judgment is interlocutory or final, it should be 



zien, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 798, 
799 Lubell v. Sutton, Tex.Civ.App., 
164 S.W.2d 41, 46, error refused. 

(5) Judgment is "interlocutory" 
where it is one substantially dispos- 
ing- of merits, ,but leaving issue of 
fact to be decided or some condi- 
tion to be performed, in order fully 
to determine the rights of the par- 
ties. Security State Bank v. Monona 
Golf Club, 252 N.W. 287, 289, 213 
Wis. 581. 

Judgments held interlocutory 

(1) Judgments based on citation 
by publication are "Interlocutory" 
only until such time as their valid- 
ity is actually established by proper 
proceeding in court of competent Ju- 
risdiction having parties in interest 
before it. Seymour v. Schwartz, 
Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 138. 

(2) A judgment which recited that 
the court, on consideration of com- 
plaint, service of summons, answer, 
and evidence introduced by plaintiffs, 
found that defendant was liable to 
plaintiffs in amounts "that may be 
adjudged later by jury properly em- 
paneled to hear the evidence pertain- 
ing to the amount of damages", etc., 
was an "interlocutory judgment" in 
which defendant's liability was prop- 
erly determined and amount of dam- 
ages left to be assessed. Checker 
Gab Co. of Hot Springs v. Leeper, 
182 S.W.2d 871, 207 Ark. 799. 

(3) A decree which in the first in- 
stance is to be a "decree nisi" but is 
to become absolute on expiration of 
stipulated period after entry thereof 
Is deemed an "interlocutory decree." 
In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A. 471, 
109 Vt 108. 

(4) Other judgments. 

Ala. Indian Head, Mills of Alabama 

v* Ashworth, 110 So. 565, 215 Ala. 

348 Blankenship v. Hail, 106 So. 

594, 214 Ala. 95 Hill v. Hill, 100 

So. 340, 211 Ala. 293. 
Nev. Nevada First Nat Bank of 

Tonopah v. Lamb, 271 P. 691, 51 

Nev. 162. 
Pa. Markofski v. .Tanks, 146 A. 569, 

297 Pa. 74 Commonwealth v. 

Provident Trust Co., 92 Pittsb.Leg. 

J. 348, 58 York LegJlec. 101. 
Tex. Fisher v. Wilson, Civ.App., 



185 S.W.2d 186, affirmed Wilson v. 
Fisher, Sup., 188 S.W.2d 150 Kline 
v. Power, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 617 
McCurley v. Texas Indemnity 
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 992, 
error refused. 
Vt. Morgan v. Gould, 119 A. 517, 96 

Vt 275. 
Va. Freezer v. Miller, 176 S.B. 159, 

163 Va. 180. 

33 C.J. p 1061 note 30 [f]. 
Process and Jurisdiction 

To render interlocutory Judgment, 
it is necessary for court to find that 
process had been served on defend- 
ant and that court had jurisdiction 
of his person. Hart v. Foster, 109 
S.W.2d 504, error dismissed. 

25. Mo. Corpus Juris cited in Bar- 
low v. gcott 85 S.W.2d 504, 519. 

N.D. Universal Motors v. Coman, 
15 N.W.2d 73, 73 N.D. 337. 

S.D. Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen- 
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630. 

33 C.J. p 1062 note 32. 

Synonymous terms 
Term "interlocutory Judgment" Is 

synonymous with term "order." 

Sobieski v. City of Chicago, 241 111. 

App. 180, error dismissed 156 N.E. 

279, 325 111. 259. 

26. Ark. Checker Cab Co. of Hot 
Springs v. Leeper, 182 S.W.2d 871, 
207 Ark. 799. 

Conn. Preston v. Preston, 128 A. 

292, 102 Conn. 96. 

C.J. p 1062 note 33. 
Statutory recognition 

(1) Interlocutory judgments or de- 
crees are expressly recognized un- 
der some statutory provisions. In 
re Bailey, 40 N.T.S.2d 746, 749, 265 
App.Div. 758, affirmed 50 N.E.2d 653, 
291 N.Y. 53433 C.J. p 1062 note 33 

(2) The legislative purpose, in en- 
acting statute authorizing interlocu- 
tory judgment, was not to authorize 
a mere tentative or proposed judg- 
ment but. one which would finally 
dispose of a portion of a controver- 
sy. Kickapoo Development Corpora- 
tion v. Kickapoo Orchard Co., 285 
N.W. 354, 231 Wis. 458. 

27. Tex. Thomas v. International 
Seamen's Union of America, Civ. 
App., 101 S.W.2d 328. 1 

37 



construed in accordance with the conduct of the 
parties and the intention of the court gathered 
from the language of the judgment or decree. 2 ? 

A judgment may be final although it does not de- 
termine the rights of the parties, if it ends the par- 
ticular suit, 2 * such as a judgment of dismissal, non- 
suit,^ or discontinuance, 30 or a judgment abating 
an action.3i Also a judgment may be final although 
further directions may be necessary to carry it into 
effect, 32 although further proceedings remain to be 
taken in court to make the judgment effective,** O r 

The character of the decree or 
Judgment is an important factor to 
be considered. Karl Kiefer Mach. 
Co. v. U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co., 
C.C.A.I11., 108 F.2d 469. 

28. Cal. Fisch & Co. v. Superior 
Court in and for Los Angeles 
County, 43 P.2d 855, 6 Cal.App.2d 
21. 

Tex. Witty v. Rose, Civ.App., 148 S. 

W.2d 962, error dismissed. 
38 C.J. p 1063 note 34. 

29. Ariz. Hartford Accident & In- 
demnity Co. v. Sorrellsi 69 P.2d 
240, 50 Ariz. 90. 

Cal. Fisch & Co. v. Superior Court 
in and for Los Angeles County 43 
P.2d 855, 6 Cal.App.2d 21. 

Mass. Sullivan v. Martinelli. 158 N 
E. 662, 261 Mass. 261. 

Tex. Renfroe v. Johnson, 177 S.W. 
3d 600, 142 Tex. 251 Ley v. Ley. 
Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 503, error dis- 
missed. 

33 C.J. p 1063 note 35. 

Dismissal fop failure to file boad for 
costs 

Tex Witty v. Rose, Civ.App., 148 
S.W.2d 962, error dismissed. 

30. Conn. Foley v. George A. 
Douglas & Bro., 185 A. 70, 121 
Conn. 377. 

31. Cal. Watterson v. Owens River 
Canal Co., 210 P. 625, 190 Cal. 88 
San Francisco Breweries v. Su- 
perior Court in and for City and 
County of San Francisco, 251 P. 
935, 80 CaLApp. 433. 

32. U.S. In re Casaudoumecq, D.C. 
Cal., 46 F.Supp. 718. 

Ind. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 

151 N.E. 610, 198 Ind. 207. 

y. Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114, 

203 Ky. 644. 
Mo. State ex rel. Maple v. Mulloy, 

15 S.W.2d 809, 322 Mo. 281. 
33 C.J. p 1063 note 36. 

33. U.S. In re Casaudoumecct, D,C. 
Cal., 46 F.Supp. 718. 

Ky. Alexander v, Tipton, 291 S.W. 

1019, 218 Ky. 666. 
Tex. Lanier v. Parnell, Civ.App., 

190 S.W.2d 421. 
Proceedings incidental to execution 

(1) Decree may be partly final and 
partly interlocutory; final as to de- 
termination of all issues, and inter- 



11 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



although the court reserves the right to modify the 
judgment. 8 * The finality of a judgment is not af- 
fected by the fact that it constitutes an erroneous 
decision as to the law or the facts. 36 

On the other hand, a judgment is not generally 
considered final where further judicial action is nec- 
essary in order fully and finally to settle the rights 
of the parties, 36 as where the judgment settles only 
some of several issues of law or fact, 37 or does not 
dispose of the case as to all the parties ; 38 but judg- 
ments determining particular matters in controver- 



sy, and of such a nature that they could be imme- 
diately enforced and by their enforcement deprive 
the party against whom they were rendered of any 
benefit which he might obtain from an appeal at any 
subsequent stage of the proceedings, have been 
deemed final. 39 A judgment is not final which is to 
become effective only on the happening of a future 
event or contingency 40 or which is made subject to 
revision at a future specified date. 41 

A judgment ordinarily is final when rendered in 
pursuance of a general verdict, 42 or on submission 



locutory as to mode of execution. 
Perry v. West Coast Bond & Mort- 
gage Co., 29 P.2d 279, 136 Cal.App. 
557. 

(2) A Judgment over against prin- 
cipal and in favor of surety on fidel- 
ity bond was "final", notwithstand- 
ing it was made contingent on pay- 
ment by surety of primary judg- 
ment against it on the bond, since 
all litigated rights relating to mat- 
ter involved were determined and 
further proceedings required in com- 
plete satisfaction of decree were 
merely incidental to its proper exe- 
cution. American Employers' Ins. 
Co. v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank, 
Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 546, error 
refused. 

34. Tex. Graham v. Coolidge, 70 S. 
W. 231, 30 Tex.Civ.App. 273. 

35. Cal. In re Gardiner's .Estate, 
114 P.2d 643, 45 Cal.App. 2 d 559. 

Tex. Snell v. Knowles, Civ.App., 87 
S.W.2d 871, error dismissed. 

36. Mo. State ex rel. and to Use 
of Abeille Fire Ins. Co. v. Sevier, 
73 S.W.2d 361, 335 Mo. 269, cer- 
tiorari denied State of Missouri ex 
rel. and to Use of Abeille Fire 
Ins. Co. of Paris v. Sevier, 55 S. 
Ct. 99, 293 U.S. 585, 79 L.Ed. 680. 

Va. Massanutten Bank of Strasburg 
v. Glaize, 14 S.B.2d 285, 177 Va, 
519. 
Reference for Judicial purpose 

Generally a decree fixing liability 
and rights of the parties and refer- 
ring the case to a master or subor- 
dinate tribunal for a judicial pur- 
pose, such as the statement of an 
account, on which a further decree 
is to be entered,. Is not a "final de- 
cree." Swarthout v. Gentry, Cal. 
App., 167 0?.2d 501. 

37. Mo. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d 504, 
519. 

Okl. Hurley v. Hurley, 127 P.2d 147, 

191 Okl. 194. 
Tenn. Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170 

S.W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232. 
Tex. Wood v. Gulf Production Co., 

Clv.App., 100 S.W.2d 412 Harris 

v. O'Brien, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 277 j 



Duke v. Gilbreath, Civ.App., 2 
S.W.2d 324, error dismissed. 
33 C.J. p 1063 note 38. 

"A case is never finally determined 
when any controversial matter, a 
part thereof, is open and undeter- 
mined." In re Returns From Her- 
minle Election Dist. of Sewickley 
Tp., Westmoreland County, 192 A. 
130, 132, 326 Pa, 321. 

Specific disposition unnecessary 

It is not essential to the finality of 
a Judgment that it in express terms 
specifically dispose of each issue, 
since the fact that judgment dispos- 
es of a particular issue may be in- 
ferred from other provisions there- 
of, provided such inference follows 
as a necessary Implication. Gamble 
v. Banneyer, 151 S.W.2d 586, 137 Tex. 
7. 

Where several distinct causes of 
action ore united in the same suit, 
the rule that a judgment to be final 
must dispose of the entire case does 
not apply. Shamburger v. Glenn, 
Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W. 81533 C.J. p 
1063 note 38 [d]. 

38. Mo. Corpus Juris Quoted In 
Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d 604, 
519 Stelger v. City of Ste. Gene- 
vieve, 141 S.W.2d 233, 235 Mo.App. 
579. 

Tex. Gathings v. Robertson, Com. 
App.. 276 S.W. 218 Minnock v. 
Garrison, Civ.App:, 144 S:W.2d 328 
Wood v. Gulf Production Co., 
Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 412 Duke v. 
Gilbreath, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324, 
error dismissed. 

33 C.J. p 1063 note 39. 

Real parties 

A judgment that fails to dispose 
of the real parties to the litigation, 
either expressly or by necessary im- 
plication, is not final. Wilson v. 
Cone, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 784. 

Disposal by implication 

A Judgment, to be "final," must 
dispose of all parties and issues In 
the case, but disposal of parties need 
not be by name, necessary implica- 
tion being sufficient. Texas Life Ins. 
Co. v. Miller, Tex.Clv.App., 114 S.W. 
2d 600. 

38 



39. Cal. Perry v. West Coast Bond 
& Mortgage Co., 29 P.2d 279, 136 
CaLApp. 557. 

Ky. Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114, 

203 Ky. 644. 
Ohio. Speidel v. Schaller, 55 N.E.2d 

346, 73 Ohio App. 141. 
Tex. Seby v. Craven Lumber Co., 

Civ. App., 259 S.W. 1093. 
33 C.J. p 1063 note 40. 
Portion of land 

Judgment awarding half of land 
in controversy to defendant without 
determining ownership of the other 
half was final as to half awarded. 
Duval v. Duval, 291 S.W. 488, 816 
Mo. 626. 

40. Tex. Echols v. Echols, Civ. 
App., 168 S.W.2d 282, error refused 
Dodd v. Daniel, Civ.App., 89 S. 
W.2d 494. 

Conditional judgments generally see 
infra 73. 

Compliance with conditions 

A judgment granting plaintiff an 
injunction, but which requires him 
to comply with certain conditions 
imposed within a certain number of 
days, and provides that, in the event 
of plaintiff's failure so to comply, 
the judgment shall be for defend- 
ants, is not a final decree. Consum- 
ers' Oil & Refining Co. v. Bilby, 217 
P. 484, 91 Okl. 282. 
Judgment held not contingent 

Agreed provisions in judgment for 
suspension and postponement of is- 
suance of order of sale under Judg- 
ment until judgment debtor's de- 
fault in payment of any stipulated 
installment of judgment debt to 
court clerk did not render judgment 
indefinite, or prevent it from being 
"final judgment" after its proper en- 
try on payment of first installment 
as there was no further contingency 
on happening of which court might 
properly be required to perform any 
further judicial function in connec- 
tion with case. Grayson v. Johnson, 
Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 312. 

41. Tex. Echols v. Echols, Civ. 
App., 168 S.W.2d 282, error re- 
fused. 

42. Mo. State v. Riley. 118 S.W. 
647, 219 Mo. 667. 

Pa. In re Fulton, 51 Pa. 204. 



49 



JUDGMENTS 



11 



of the entire case to the court, 4 * or on submission 
for decision on the pleadings. 44 A judgment or de- 
cree by consent may constitute a final disposition of 
a cause. 45 Judgment upon demurrer to any of the 
pleadings in chief is generally final unless leave to 
amend or to plead over is given, 4 in which case 
the judgment is interlocutory. 47 A judgment or de- 
cree for an accounting is interlocutory in charac- 
ter. 48 The question whether a particular order or 
judgment is final or interlocutory most frequently 
arises as a question of appealability, and these cas- 
es are discussed in Appeal and Error 94-108. 

b. When Judgment Becomes Final 

A Judgment Is generally considered final and en- 
forceable as soon as It is entered, read, and signed in 
open court, but for some purposes It may not be final 
until a later time. 

For most purposes a judgment will be considered 
final and enforceable by appropriate writ as soon as 



it is entered, read, and signed in open court, 49 not- 
withstanding a motion for new trial remains undis- 
posed of, 5 <> that the judgment is still subject to 
appellate review, 51 or that an appeal is actually 
pending. 52 A judgment is not "final" for some pur- 
poses, however, merely because execution may be 
issued on it, 53 and it has been variously held that 
finality attaches to the judgment only at the end 
of the term of court at which it was entered, 54 or at 
the end of a specified period of time after the date 
of its rendition, 55 or after the time for filing mo- 
tions to prevent entry of judgment has expired with- 
out such motions being filed, or, if filed, after they 
are determined. 56 It has also been held that a judg- 
ment becomes final only after expiration of the time 
allowed by law for appeal therefrom, or, if an ap- 
peal is perfected, after the judgment is upheld in 
the appellate court, 5 ? but this rule is inapplicable 
if the judgment is not subject to review. 58 



43. 111. Pease v. Roberts, 9 BLApp. 
132. 

33 C.J. p 1063 note 42. 

44. Wis. Sanderson v. Herman, 85 
N.W. 141, 108 Wis. 662. 

33 C.J. p 1063 note 43. 

45. Ala. Payne v. Graham, 102 So. 
729, 20 Ala-App. 439. 

Colo. Heil v. Hubbell, 252 P. 343, 

80 Colo. 452. 
Ga. Baker v. McCord, 162 S.B. 110, 

173 Ga. 819. 

46. Ark. Smart v. Alexander, 158 
S.W.2d 924, 203 Ark. 1147. 

Del. Hazzard v. Alexander, 178 A. 

873, 6 W.W.Harr. 512. 
33 C.J. p 1063 note 44. 

Provision permitting fiUaff excep- 
tions or statement of facts did not 
avoid implication that judgment dis- 
posed of case on general demurrer 
rather than on the merits. Wells v. 
Stonerock, Teac.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 
961. 

The ruling 1 of the court on a de- 
murrer is not a final order unless 
final judgment is entered thereon. 
Cooper v. Knuckles, 279 S.W. 1084, 
212 Ky. 608. 

47. xj.s. Morris v. Dunbar, Pa,, 149 
F. 406, 79 C.C.A. 226. 

33 C.J. p 1063 note 45. 

48. Kan. City of Eureka v. Kansas 
Electric Power Co., 3 P.2d 484, 133 
Kan. 708. 

33 C.J. P 1063 note 46. 

49. Ind. Whinery v. Kozacik, 22 N 
E.2d 829, 216 Ind. 136. 

Mass. In re Keenan, 47 N.E.2d 12 

313 Mass. 186. 
Time of taking effect of Judgmen 

see infra 446. 
Signing held necessary 

It has been held that a judgmen 
is not final until it is signed. Rive 



& Rails Terminals v. Louisiana Ry. 

& Nav. Co., 103 So. 331, 157 La. 1085 

Young v. Geter, La.App.. 187 So. 
30. 

a Ind. Whinery v. Kozacik, 22 N. 
E.2d 829, 216 Ind. 13.6. 

Finality of determination as affect- 
ed by proceedings for relief 
against judgment see infra 622, 
623. 700-702. 

L Ohio. Shoup v. Clemans, App., 
31 N.E.2d 103. 

52. U.S. In re Maryanov, D.C.N.Y., 
20 F.2d 939. 

tf.Y. In re Bailey, 40 N.Y.S.2d 746, 
265 App.Div. 758, affirmed 50 N.E. 
2d 653, 291 N.Y. 534. 

53. Okl. Methvin v. Methvin, 127 
P.2d 186, 191 Okl. 177. 

54. TT.S. Reed v. South Atlantic 
S. S. Co. of Delaware, D.C.Del., 
2 F.R.D. 475. 

Pa, Salus v. Fogel, 153 A, 547, 302 
Pa. 268. 

55. Fla. Mabson v. Christ, 119 So. 
131, 96 Fla. 756. 

Ky. Yumg v. Yung, 171 S.W.2d 1017, 
294 Ky. 369. 

Tex. Gillette Motor Transport Co, 
v Wichita Falls & Southern R- 
Co. Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 629, man- 
damus denied Wichita Falls & S 
R. Co. v. McDonald, 174 S.W.2d 
951, 141 Tex. 555. 

Va. Carney v. Poinderter, 196 S.E 
639, 170 Va. 233. 
judgment rendered on constructive 

service does not become final unti 

two years from rendition. TrujilK 

v. Piarote, 53 S.W.2d 466, 122 Tex. 

173. 

56. U.S. Moss v. Kansas City Lif 
Ins. Co., C.C.A.MO., 96 F.2d 10$ 

Mo Lee's Summit Building & Loan 
Ass'n v. Cross, 134 S.W.2d 19, 34 

39 



Mo. 501 Williams v. Pemiscot 
County, 133 S.W.2d 417, 345 Mo. 
415 Melenson v. Howell, 130 S.W. 
2d 555, 344 Mo. 1137. 
BSotton for new trial 

(1) Text rule applies with respect 
o pendency of motion for new trial. 

Fla, Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co., 
for Use and Benefit of Walker, 1 
So.2d 864, 147 Fla. 1. 

Mo. Cox v. Frank L. Schaab Stove 
& Furniture Co., 58 S.W.2d 700, 
332 Mo. 492, transferred, see App., 
67 S.W.2d 790. 

Tex. Rabinowitz v. Darnall, Com. 
App., 13 S.W.2d 73. 

(2) Where motion for xew trial 
was never heard, the motion was au- 
tomatically overruled at the end 
of the next succeeding term, and the 

udgment then became final. Kinney 
v. Toelin Bros. Mercantile Co., 220 
P. 998, 74 Colo. 295. 

An unauthorized motion will not 
suffice to postpone finality of a ju- 
dicial decision. Lindsay v. Evans, 
Mo.App., 174 S.W.2d 390. 
57. Ga, Powell v. Powell, 37 S.E. 

2d 191 Aud v. Aud, 35 S.E.2d 198, 

199 Ga. 714 Twilley v. Twilley, 24 

S.E.2d 46, 195 Ga, 297. 
Okl. Methvin v. Methvin, 127 P.2d 

186, 191 Old. 177. 

judgment is final when defendant 
fails to perfect appeal therefrom 
within time prescribed by law. 
La. Robinson v. Weiner, 105 So. 35, 

158 La. 979 Albritton v. Nauls, 

App., 15 So.2d 126, 128. 
Pa. H. Miller & Sons' Co. v. Mt. 

Lebanon Tp., 163 A. 511; 309 Pa. 

221. 
Tex. Bound v. Dillard, Civ.App., 140 

S.W.2d 520. 
58. U.S. In re Tapp, D.C.Ky., 61 

F.Supp. 594. 



12 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



12. Judgments in Rem' and in Per- 

sonam 

A Judgment in rem Is an adjudication pronounced on 
the status of some particular subject matter, while a 
judgment In personam is In form and substance between 
the parties claiming the right in controversy and does 
not directly affect the status of the res. 

Judgments, for certain purposes, are divided into 
three classes designated as "judgments in perso- 
nam" or "personal judgments," "judgments in rem/' 
and "judgments quasi in rem/' 65 A judgment or 
decree in rem is an adjudication pronounced on the 



status of some particular subject matter by a tri- 
bunal having competent authority for that pur- 
pose. 60 It differs from a judgment or decree in 
personam in this, that the latter is in form as well 
as in substance between the parties claiming the 
right in controversy, and does not directly affect 
the status of the res, but only through the action of 
the parties. 61 Judgments quasi in rem are rendered 
in proceedings quasi in rem and affect not only title 
to the res, but likewise the right in and to it pos- 
sessed by individuals. 62 



H. ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OP JUDGMENT 

A. IN GENERAL 



13. General Statement 

It Is essential to the validity of a Judgment that It 
be based on, and be in conformity with, recognized prin- 
ciples and fundamentals of law. 

It is essential to the validity of a judgment that 
it be based on, and be in conformity with, recog- 



nized principles and fundamentals of law. 68 Where 
statutory powers are conferred on a court of in- 
ferior jurisdiction, and the mode of executing those 
powers is prescribed, the course pointed out must 
be substantially pursued, or the judgments of the 



59. Kan, Union Central Life Ins. | 
Co. v. 'Irrigation Loan & T. Co., 73 ; 
P,2d 72, 146 Kan. 550. 

Ky. Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.2d 
368, 249 Ky. 155, 8D A.L.R. 1095. 

Actions In rem and in personam see 
Actions $52. 

60. 111. McCormick y. Blaine, 178 
N.B. 195, 197, 345 111. 461, 77 A.L. 
R. 1215 Wilson v. Smart, 155 N. 
B. 288, 291, 324 IH. 276 Austin v. 
Royal League, 147 N.E. 106, 109, 
316 111. 188. 

Ky. Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d 821; 
822 Booth v. Copley, 140 S.W.2d 
662, 666, 283 Ky. 23 Corpus Juris 
quoted in Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W. 
2d 368, 369, 249 Ky, 156, 89 A.L.R. 
1095. 
Nev. Perry v. Edmonds, 84 P.2d 711, 

713, 59 Nev. 60. 
33 C.J. p 1063 note 4834 C.J. P 1171 

note 89. 

Judgments in rem generally see in- 
fra 907-911. 

A "special" Judgment is a judg- 
ment in rem. Smith v. Colloty, 55 
A. 805, 806, 69 N.J.Law 365. 

Judgments held not in rem 

(1) Generally. 

Conn. Whipple v. Fardig, 146 A. 

847, 109 Conn. 460. 
Iowa. Ryke v. Ream, 234 N.W. 196, 

212 Iowa 126. 

(2) In equity action by assignee 
of insured's creditor to have pro- 
ceeds of life policies subjected to 
creditor's claim, that proceeds of one 
policy were on deposit in bank in an- 
other state did not make the decree 
ne in rem rather than in personam. 



In re Hazeldine's Estate, 280 N.W. 
6C8, 225 Iowa 369. 

61. Ky. Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d 
821, 822 Corpus Juris quoted in 
Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.2d "368, 
369, 249 Ky. 155, 89 A.L.R. 1095. 

33 C.J. p 1064 note 49. 

The term "general judgment" has 
been used as synonymous with 
"judgment in personam." Smith v. 
Colloty, 55 A. 805, 806, 69 N.J.Law 
365. 

Judgment held in personam 
Miss. Jones v. McCormick, 110 So. 
591, 145 Miss. 566. 

Judgment held not in personam 
U.S. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 

v. Wells, C.C.A.Tex., 285 F. 369, 

reversed on other grounds 44 S. 

Ct. 469, 265 U.S. 101, 68 L.Ed. 928. 

The inclusion of costs in judgment 
against a nonresident did not render 
it void as a personal judgment, 
where the judgment recited that de- 
fendant was duly cited. Reitz v. 
Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 256 .S.W. 697. 

Equity decrees operate in person, 
am and at most only collaterally in 
rem. McKixmey v. Mires, 26 P.2d 
169, 95 Mont 191. 

62. Ky. Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W. 
2d 363, 249 Ky. 155, 89 A.L.R. 
1095. 

63, IT.S. Duwamish v. TT. S., 79 Ct. 
Cl. 530, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct. 
913, 295 U.S. 755, 79 L.Ed. 1698. 

Utah. Stockyards Nat. Bank of 
South Omaha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966, 
67 Utah 60. 

. 40 



Bond 

Judgment Is not bad because trial 
judge refuses to fix amount and con- 
ditions of supersedeas bond. Mc- 
Cann v. Proskauer, 112 So. 621, 93 
Fla. 383. 

Judgment obtained at variance 
with practice of court or contrary 
to well recognized principles and 
fundamentals of law must fall. 
Stockyards Nat. Bank of South Oma- 
ha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966, 67 Utah 60. 

Legality 

The requirement that Judgment to 
be valid must be one which tho court 
could legally render means only that 
judgment must be one which could 
have been legally rendered on the 
issue shown by the pleadings and 
evidence. Wall v. Superior Court of 
Yavapai County, 89 P.2d 024, 63 Ariz. 
344. 

Judgment rendered on proceeding 
improperly commenced is void. Mu- 
tual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. 
Prever Lumber Co., 3 N.Y*.S.2d 642, 
167 Misc. 662, reversed on other 
grounds 6 N.7.S.2d 28, 168 Misc. 358. 

Unauthorized practice of law 

Fact that judgments were procur- 
ed by one engaged in the illegal 
practice of law did not render them 
void or voidable. Bump v. Barnett, 
Iowa, 16 N.W.2d 579. 

Upholding judgment 

Sound public policy demands that 
judgments be upheld, where it can 
be done* without violating any stat- 
ute or settled principle of law. Bet- 
sill v. Betsill, 196 S.E. 381, 187 8.CL 
50. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



16 



court will be void.** A cotirt shoald act render 
a decree which is void for constitutional reasons. 65 

14. Statutory Provisions and What Law 
Governs 

The validity, force, and effect of a Judgment must 
be determined by the laws In force at the time and in 
the jurisdiction where It was rendered. 

The validity, force, and effect of a judgment must 
be determined by the laws in force at the time 66 
and in the state or country where it was rendered. 67 

15. Duly Constituted Court 

It Is essential to the validity of a judgment that 
It be the sentence or adjudication of a duly constituted 
court or judicial tribunal. 

It is essential to the validity of a judgment that 
it be the sentence or adjudication of a duly consti- 
tuted court or judicial tribunal. 68 Judicial powers 
are sometimes conferred on tribunals not techni- 
cally courts, and decisions by such tribunals, in the 



64. Wis. Corpus Juris cited in 
State ex rel. Lang 1 v. Civil Court of 
Milwaukee County, 280 N.W. 847, 
849, 228 Wis. 411. 

Wyo. State v. District Court of 
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for 
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 83 
Wyo. 281. 

33 C.J. p 1064 note 58. 

Exercise of statutory Jurisdiction 
only as statute directs see Courts 
5 89. 

65. Colo. In re Special Assess- 
ments for Paving Dist. No. 3, In 
City of Golden, 95 P.2d 806, 105 
Colo. 158. 

66. Cal. Lake v. Bonynge, 118 -P. 
535, 161 Cal. 120. 

83 C.J. p 1064 note 59. 

67. Mont Swift & Co. v. Weston, 
289 P. 1035, 88 Mont 40. 

33 C.J. p 1064 note 60. 
Foreign judgments see Infra 55 888- 
906. 

68. Ark, Chapman & Dewey Lum- 
ber Co. v. A-ndrews, 91 S.W.2d 
1026, 192 Ark. 291. 

Mass. Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.E. 

870, 255 Mass. 132. 
33 C.J. p 1064 note 61. 
Judgment on motion or summary 

proceedings see infra S 219. 
Rendition of judgments generally 

see infra 100-105. 

Nullity of Judgment results from 
a want of a legally organized court 
or tribunal. 
Cal. Hunter v. Superior Court in 

and for Riverside County, 97, P.2d 

492, 36 Cal.App.2d 100. 
Tex. San Jacinto Finance Corpora- 



exercise of powers thus conferred, are considered 
as judgments. 69 

Judgments of de facto courts. On principles of 
public policy and for the security of rights it has 
been held that the regular judgments of a de facto 
court, whose existence has afterward been pro- 
nounced unconstitutional and void, are nevertheless 
valid and conclusive. 70 

16. Time and Place 

a. In general 

b. At chambers 

a. In General 

It has been held to be essential to the validity of a 
judgment that it be rendered by a court sitting at the 
time and also In the place authorized by law. 

According to some authorities, it is essential to 
the validity of a judgment that it be rendered by a 
court sitting at the time 71 and also in the place 72 
authorized by law, the tribunal not being otherwise 
a court in any legal sense, 7 * and the proceedings 



v. Perkins, CivJLpp., 94 S.W. 

2d 1213. 

Judgments hold not void 
Mo. State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co. 

v. Hostetter, 79 S.W.2d 463, 336 

Mo. 391. 
Tex. Hudson v. Norwood, Civ.App., 

147 S.W.2d 826, error dismissed, 

judgment correct 

69. Me. Longfellow v. Quimby, 29 
Me. 196, 48 Axn.D. 525. 

33 C.J. p 1065 note 67. 

Allowance of claim by assignee for 
benefit of creditors as equivalent 
to judgment see Assignments for 
Benefit of Creditors S 321. 

7a Minn. Burt v, Winona & St P. 

R. Co., 18 N.W. 285, 81 Minn. 472. 
33 C.J. p 1070 note 2. 
De facto courts generally see Courts 

144. 

71. Ala. Polytinsky v. Johnston, 99 
So. 839, 211 Ala. 99. 

Ark. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. 
Saunders, 94 S.W.2d 703, 192 Ark. 
783. 

Ga. Hicks v. Hicks, 27 S.E.2d 10, 
69 Ga.Afcp. 870. 

HI. -Wallace Grain & Supply Co. v. 
Gary, 24 N.E.2d 907, 308 ULApp. 
221, reversed on other grounds 28 
N.B.2d 107, 374 111. 57. 

TexBritish General Ens. Co. v. 
Ripy, 106 S.W.2d 1047, 130 Tex. 
101 Glasscock v. Pickens, Civ. 
App., 73 S.W.2d 992 Sinclair Re- 
fining Co. v. McElree, Civ.App., 52 
S.W.2d 679 Engelman v. Ander- 
son, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 650. 

33 C.J. p 1065 note 72. 

Validity of judgment on holiday see 
Holidays S 5 d. 



Validity of Judgment on Sunday see 
the C.J.S. title Sundays 53, also 
60 C.J. p 1146 note 57-p 1147 
note 70. 

72. Ala. Polytiosky v. Johnston, 99 
So. 839, 211 Ala. 99. 

OkL City of Clinton ex rel. Rich- 
ardson v. Keen, 158 P.2d 104, 192 

. Okl. 382 City of Clinton ex rel. 
Richardson v. Cornell, 132 P.2d 
840, 191 Okl. 600. 

Tex. British General Ins. Co. v. 
Ripy. 106 S.W.2d 1047, 130 Tex. 101 
Ferguson v. Ferguson, Civ.App., 
98 S.W.2d 847. 

33 C.J. p 1066 note 73. 

District 

(1) Ordinarily, a judgment cannot 
be rendered out of the district.-^ 
Killiam v. Maiden Chair Co., 161 S. 
E. 546, 202 N.C. 23. 

(2) This rule has been held inap- 
plicable where the parties consent 
thereto, although the consent should 
be in writing. Killiam v. Maiden 
Chair Co., supra. 

Signing judgment in another county 

(1) It has been held that a judg- 
ment rendered at the close of the 
evidence at the place of trial is not 
rendered invalid because it was sign- 
ed out of the county where trial was 
had, under a statute providing that 
judgment or decree may be rendered 
by. the judge at any place in his dis- 
trict Swanson v. First Nat Bank, 
219 P. 784, 74 Colo. 135. 

(2) Other cases see 33 C.J. p 1066 
note 73* [b]. 

73. Ariz. Meade v. Scribaer, 85 P. 
729, 10 Ariz. 33. 

33 C.J. p 1066 note 74. 



16 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



being, therefore, coram aon judioe. 74 In some cas- 
es, however, it has been held that the fact that a 
term of court at which a judgment was rendered 
was held at a time other than that prescribed or 
authorized by law, while rendering the judgment 
erroneous and constituting ground for its reversal, 
does not render the judgment void; 7 * but a con- 
trary view has also been taken and a judgment ren- 
dered under such circumstances has been held to be 
void. It has been held that the mere fact that 
the court was held at a place other than that di- 
rected by law will not of itself render the judg- 
ment void, 7 ? as where the court errs with respect 
to the location of the county seat 78 

The proper time for the rendition and entry of 
judgment is discussed infra 113-116. 

b. At Chambers 

Judgments should be rendered In open court and not 
in chambers. 

Judgments should be rendered in open court and 
not in chambers, 79 and it has been held that judg- 
ments rendered in chambers are void, 80 in the ab- 



sence of statutory or constitutional provisions au- 
thorizing such action at chambers. 81 

17. Judges 

a. In general 

b. Disqualified judge 

c. De facto judge 

d. Special judge 

a. In General 

Illegal constitution of the court with respect to the 
Judge or judges sitting renders the Judgment absolutely 
void. 

Illegal constitution of the court with respect to 
the judge or judges sitting, as distinguished from' 
mere disqualification of one or more of such judg- 
es, renders the judgment absolutely void. 82 

b. Disqualified Judge 

In the absence of a constitutional or statutory provi- 
sion forbidding a disqualified Judge from acting, a Judg- 
ment rendered by a disqualified judge is voidable but 
not void. 

Where a judge is forbidden to act in a case when 
he is disqualified, 83 as by reason of interest, 84 re- 
lationship to parties, 85 having acted as counsel, 86 



74. Gau Hicks v. Hicks, 27 S.E.2d 

10, 69 Ga.App. 870. 
33 C.J. p 1066 note 75. 

76. S.D. Lockard v. Lockard, 110 
N.W. 1C4, 21 S.D. 134. 

33 C.J. P 1066 note 76. 

Court held under color of law 

This view has been adopted where 
the court was held under color of 
law at a particular time, but at time 
other than that actually fixed by law. 
there having been a change in the 
law which was unknown or overlook- 
ed. Venable v. Curd, 2 Head, Tenn., 
682. 
78. Ala. State v. Thurman, 88 So. 

61, 17 Ala.App. 592. 
33 C.J. p 1066 note 78. 

77. Minn. In re Ellis, 56 N.W. 1056, 
55 Minn. 401, 43 Am.S.R. 514, 23 
L.R.A, 287. 

33 C.J. p 1066 note 79. 

78. 111. Robinson v. Moore, 25 HI. 
185. 

79. Tex. Bridgman v. Moore, 183 
S.W.2d 705, 143 Tex. 250. 

33 O.J. p 1070 note 96. 
Term ttxne * 

It has been held that, if the judg- 
ment Is entered In term time, it is 
immaterial whether court perform- 
ed act of rendering Judgment in 
private office or courtroom. Doep- 
penschxnidt v. City of New Braun- 
fels, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W. 425. 
Boom of courthouse 

Judgment by superior court in 
room In courthouse at county site 



other than regular courtroom has 
been held not void, where no legal 
or constitutional right of defendant 
was infringed, and no substantial in- 
jury to him has been done. Walton 
v. Wilkinson Bolton Co., 123 S.E. 103, 
158 Ga. 13. 
Signing judgment 

Whether judgment was signed at 
chambers or in open court was im- 
material, since the signing of judg- 
ment involves no judicial considera- 
tion. Baldwin v. Anderson, 13 P.2d 
650, 52 Idaho 24333 C.J. p 1070 
note 96 [e]. 

80. Colo. Scott v. Stutheit, 121 P. 
151, 21 Colo.App. 151. 

Neb. Shold v. Van Treeck, 117 N. 

W. 113, 82 Neb. 99. 
33 C.J. p 1070 note 9615 C.J. p 815 

note 25. 

Under statute requiring Judgments 
to be read in open court, a judgment 
read or signed in chambers without 
authorization of counsel or litigants 
is a nullity. Hammond Box Co. v. 
Carmello Musso & Co., La.App., 172 
So. 790 Green v. Frederick, 136 So. 
783, 17 La,App. 60533 C.J. p 1070 
note 96 [g]. 

81. Wash. Williams v. Briley, 242 
P. 370, 137 Wash. 262. 

33 C.J. p 1070 note 9715 C.J. p 
826 note 26. 

82. IU.-<!obb v. People, 84 HL 511- 
33 C.J. p 1070 note 7. 

33. Cal. Glometti v. Etienne, 28 P. 
2d 913, 219 Cal. 687 Cadenasso v. 

42 



Bank of Italy, 6 P.2d 944, 214 Cal. 

562. 
Or. Western Athletic Club v. 

Thompson, 129 P.2d 828, 169 Or. 

514. 
Tex. Williams v. Sinclair-Prairie 

Oil Co., Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 211, 

error dismissed, judgment correct 

Weil v. Lewis, Civ.App., 2 S.W. 

2d 566. 
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9. 

84. Mont. Gaer v. Bank of Baker, 
107 P.2d 877, 111 Mont. 204. 

33 C.J. p 1071 note 9. 

Judge who is stockholder of plain- 
tiff bank is disqualified, and has no 
jurisdiction to render judgment 
which, if rendered, is void. Cade- 
nasso v. Bank of Italy, 6 P.2d 944, 
214 Cal. 562, 

85. Tex. Postal Mut. Indemnity Co. 
v. Ellis, 169 S.W.2d 482, 140 Tex, 
570 Weil v. Lewis, Civ.App., 2 S. 
W.2d 566 Stephenson v. Kirkham, 
Civ.App., 297 S.W. 266. 

33 C.J. p 1071 note 9. 

Void as to other defendants 

Judgment void as to one defendant 
because of judge's relationship was 
void as to other defendants. Weil 
v. Lewis, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 566. 

*. Tex. Williams v. Sinclair-Prai- 
rie Oil Co., Civ.Ap.p., 135 S.W.2d 
211, error dismissed, judgment cor- 
rect. 

33 C.J. p 1071 note 9 [c]. 

Issistant county attorney 
Where a county judge hearing sec- 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



17 



or prejudice, 87 any judgment by him in disregard 
of the prohibition is void. Consent of parties can- 
not confer jurisdiction in such cases, 88 unless the 
statute excepts from its prohibition cases where 
the parties consent, in which event consent of par- 
ties removes the disqualification to act, 89 as would 
be the case in the absence of any express prohibi- 
tion to act. 90 

Where there is no absolute prohibition of his act- 
ing, the mere fact that the judge is disqualified does 
not render the judgment void, although it may ren- 
der it voidable or reversible. 91 There is authority, 
however, holding that such judgments are void even 
in the absence of any statutory prohibition. 92 

While it has been held that, where several judges 
constitute the court, and one of them is disquali- 
fied, the judgment is void, if such disqualified judge 
participated in the hearing and determination, 93 
there is also authority to the contrary. 94 In some 
cases it has been held that a disqualified judge may 



sit, pro forma, to make a quorum without invali- 
dating the judgment, provided he does not otherwise 
participate in the proceedings; 96 but there is also 
authority to the contrary. 96 It has been held that 
two judges of an appellate court may render a valid 
judgment where the third judge has disqualified 
himself. 97 

Entry of formal judgment. A judge who is dis- 
qualified in a cause may enter a formal judgment 
directed by the appellate court, as in such case he 
is not required to exercise any judgment or dis- 
cretion. 98 

c. De Facto Judge 

A Judgment rendered by a Judge de facto Is valid. 
A judgment rendered by a judge de facto is val- 
id. 99 On this principle, it has been held that a 
judgment rendered by a properly elected judge be- 
fore the legal commencement of his term of office, 1 
or after the expiration of his term, 2 is valid 



ond liquor prosecution was disquali- 
fied because he had been assistant 
county attorney at time of first pros- 
ecution, judgment rendered on sec- 
ond prosecution was void. Woodland 
v. State, 178 S.W.2d 528, 147 Tex.Cr. 
84. 

87. Ohio. Wendel v. Hughes, 28 N. 
E.2d 686, 64 Ohio App. 310. 

Or. -Western Athletic Club v. 
Thompson, 129 P.2d 828, 169 Or. 
514. 

88. Vt. Watson v. Payne, 111 A. 
462, 94 Vt. 299. 

83 C.J. p 1071 note 10, 

89. Okl. Holloway v. Hall, 192 P. 
219, 79 Okl..l63. 

38 C.J. p 1071 note 12. 
Knowledge of facts 

Where parties to proceedings to 
set aside orders in statutory rehabil- 
itation proceeding stipulated to 
waiver of disqualification of judge 
whose sister owned stock in delin- 
quent insurer under statute relating 
to disqualification of judges, and 
waiver was not specifically limited 
to ownership by sister of stock, un- 
awareness of plaintiff when signing 
stipulation that sister was a mem- 
ber of two stockholders' committees, 
one of which was a party to proceed- 
ings to set aside orders, did not ren- 
der judgment void. Neblett v. Pa- 
cific Mut Life Ins. Co. of California, 
139 P.2d 934, 22 Cal.2d 393, certiorari 
denied 64 S.Ct. 428, 320 U.S. 802, 
88 L.Ed. 484. 

90. N.H. Stearns v. Wright, 51 N. 
H. 600. 

33 C.J. p 1071 note 18. 

91. Ala. Phillips v. State, App., 24 
So.2d 226. 

Ind. State ex rel. Krodel v. Gilkison, 
198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213. 



Ohio. Tari v. State, 159 N.B. 594, | 
117 Ohio St. 481, 67 A.L.R. 284. 

Okl. Mansfield, Sizer & Gardner v. 
Smith, 16 P.2d 1066, 160 Okl. 298 
Dancy v. Owens, 258 P. 879, 126 
Okl. 37 State v. Davenport, 256 P. 
340, 125 Okl. 1. 

S.C. Sandel v. Crum, 125 S.B. 919, 
130 S.C. 317. 

33 C.J. p 1071 note 14. 

At common, law 

U.S. Crites v. Radtke, D.C.N.T., 29 
F.Supp. 970 In re Fox West Coast 
Theatres, D.C.Cal., 25 F.Supp. 250, 
affirmed, C.C.A., 88 F.2d 212, cer- 
tiorari denied Tally v. Fox Film 
Corporation, 57 S.Ct. 944, 301 U.S. 
710, 81 LJEd. 1363, rehearing de- 
nied 58 S.Ct 7, 302 U.S. 772, 82 
L.Ed. 598. 

Ind. State, ex rel. Krodel v. Gilki- 
son, 198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213. 

92. Ky. Hall v. Blackard, 182 S. 
W.2d 904, 298 Ky. 354 Common- 
wealth v. Murphy, 174 S.W.2d 681, 
295 Ky. 466 Coquillard Wagon 
Works v. Melton, 125 S.W. 291, 
137 Ky. 189. 

93. N.T. Oakley v. Aspinwall, 8 N. 
T. 547. 

33 C.J. p 1071 note 16. 

JtLdge necessary to make quorum 

The judgment is void if the dis- 
qualified judge is necessary to make 
a quorum. Stockwell v. White Lake, 
22 Mich. 341. 

94. N.D. State v. Kositzky, 166 N. 
W. 634, 8 N.D. 616. 

"The mere presence of, and par- 
ticipation by, a member of a judicial 
body disqualified to act in a par- 
ticular case, does not necessarily in- 
validate the proceedings and judg- 
ment of that body. Particularly is 
this true if his presence is not nee- 

43 



essary to constitute a quorum, or his 
vote does not determine the result" 
State v. Kositzky, 166 N.W. 534, 
535, 38 N.D. 616, L.R.A.1918D 237. 

95. Utah. Nephi Irr. Co. v. Jenkins, 
32 P. 699, 8 Utah 452. 

Wis. Rogan v. Walker, 1 Wis. 597. 
Fro tempore member 

A decision of district court of ap- 
peal was not void because the judge 
who tried the case appealed from 
was a member of appellate tribunal 
pro tempore and sat on the bench 
when case was argued, where such 
judge did not participate in decision 
and specifically disqualified himself. 
Bracey v. Gray, Cal.App., 162 P.2d 
314, motion granted and certiorari 
denied Gray v. Bracey, 66 S.Ct. 961. 

96. Wis. Case v. Hoffman, 72 N.W. 
390, 100 Wis. 314, 44 L.R.A. 728, 
vacated 74 N.W. 220, 100 Wis. 314, 
44 L.R.A. 728, reheard 75 N.W. 
945, 100 Wis. 314, 44 L.R.A. 728. 

97. Tex. Marshburn v. Stewart, 
Civ.App., 295 S.W. 679. 

98. U.S. Clarke v. Chicago, B. '& 
Q. R. Co., CC.A.Wyo., 62 F.2d 440, 
certiorari denied 54 S.Ct 49, three 
cases, 290 U.S. 629, 78 L.Ed. 54$. 

33 C.J. p 1072 note 21. 

Entry generally see infra 106. 

99. Colo. Rude v. Sisack, 96 P. 
976, 44 Colo. 21. 

N.T. McLear v. Balmat, 223 N.T.S. 
76, 129 Misc. 805, reversed on oth- 
er grounds 230 N.T.S. 259, 224 App. 
Div. 306, modified 231 N.T.S. 581, 
224 AppJDiv. 366. 

Ohio. Demereaux v. State, 172 NJ33. 
551, 35 Ohio App. 418. 

33 C.J. p 1072 note 23. 

1. Va, McCraw v. Williams, 83 
Gratt 510, 74 Va. 510. 

2. Cal. Merced Bank v. Bosenthal, 



17 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



d. Special Judge 

A Judgment rendered by a special or substitute Judge 
Is valid where such a Judge has been duly appointed 
and Is authorized to act. 

A judgment rendered by a special or substitute 
judge is valid where such a judge has been duly 
appointed and is authorized to act 8 A judgment 
rendered by a- special judge without proper author- 
ity is a nullity, 4 as where the appointment of a spe- 
cial judge was unauthorized. 5 



18. Formal Proceedings 

It Is essential to the existence and validity of a 
Judgment that the decision shall have been rendered In 
an action or proceeding before the court, In some form 
recognized and sanctioned by law. 

It is essential to the existence and validity of a 



judgment that the decision shall have been rendered 
in an action or proceeding before the court, 6 in 
some form recognized and sanctioned, by law.? The 
established modes of procedure must be followed, 8 
although mere irregularities in the proceedings will 
not necessarily invalidate the judgment. 9 Accord- 
ingly, a judgment in a court of record must be 
based on definite and regular proceedings, which 
the record must disclose. 10 Likewise, as a general 
rule, before a valid judgment may be rendered 
against a defendant, he must be accorded an op- 
portunity to be heard and present his defense, 11 and 
for this purpose, as discussed infra 23, he must 
be given notice of the action or proceeding against 
him. It has been held that it is not essential to the 
validity of a judgment against a defendant in a 
civil action that he be present at any of the pro- 



si P. 849, 99 Cal. 39, reheard 33 P. 
732, 99 Cal. 39. 
33 C.J. p 1072 note 25. 

3, Ariz, Payne v. Williams, 56 P. 
2d 186, 47 Ariz. 396. 

Ark. Moffett v. Texarkana Forest 

Park Pavtog, Sewer, and Water 

Dist. No. 2, 26 S.W.2d 589, 181 

Ark. 474. 

N.D. Olson v. Donnelly, 294 N.W. 

666, 70 N.D. 370. 

Tex. Boone v. Likens-Waddill Mo- 
tor Co., Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 979. 
Power of successor judge to render 
judgment in proceeding begun be- 
fore predecessor see Judges 56. 
Entry on record of agreement of 
counsel for appointment of judge ad 
litem has been held not essential to 
validity of judgment. TT, S. Fidelity 
& Guaranty Co. v. Tucker, 159 So. 
787, 118 Fla. 430. 
Failure to take oath 

The failure of a special Judge to 
take oath of office has been held not 
to render his judgments void. 
Kan, In re Hewes, 62 P. 673, 62 

Kan. 288. 
W.Va. Tower v. Whip, 44 S.E. 179, 

53 W.Va, 158, 63 L.R.A, 937. 
Judge pro tempore 

Where Judge pro tempore was se- 
lected by agreement of parties after 
disqualification of district Judge by 
affidavit of prejudice, Judgment of 
judge pro tempore was as valid and 
as binding on parties as though it 
had been rendered by presiding 
Judge of district Moruzzi v. Fed- 
eral Life & Casualty Co., 75 P.2d 
320, 42 N.M. 35, 115 A.L.R. 407. 
Waiver, of irregularity 

It has been held that, where de- 
fendants waived an Irregularity in 
the appointment of a special judge, 
a judgment rendered by sudh judge 
is not void. Winters v. Allen, 62 
S.W.2d 51, 166 Tenn. 281. 

4. Fla. Sapp v. McConnon & Co., 
169 So. 622, 124 Fla. 879. 



111. Healy v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 

161 IlLApp. 138. 

Ind. Herbster V; State, 80 I-nd. 484. 
Ky. Ooleman v. Mullins, 288 S.W. 

701, 216 Ky. 761. 
Mo. Cook v. Cook, 68 S.W.2d 900, 

228 Mo.App. 478. 

Tex* Younger Bros. v. Turner, Civ. 
App., 132 S.W.2d 632 Metropolitan 
Life Ins. Co. v. Painter, Civ.App., 
64 S.W.2d 828 Clements v. Fort 
Worth & D. S. P. Ry. Co., Civ.App., 
7 S.W.2d 895. 
Signing at chambers 

Special judge, unless duly commis- 
sioned to hold and holding court in 
county or courts of Judicial district 
when signing judgment at chambers, 
was without authority in premises. 
Bohannon v. Virginia Trust Co., 153 
S.E. 263, 198 N.C. 702. 

5. Ky. Bark v. Springton Coal Co,, 
124 S.Wl2d 760, 276 Ky. 501. 

Tex Bailey v. Triplett Bros;, Civ. 
App., 278 S.W. 250. 

33 C.J. p 1072 note 28. 

& N.Y. Booth v. Kingsland Ave, 
Bldg. Ass'n, 46 N.T.S. 457, 18 App. 
Div. 407, 408. 

33 C.J. p 1072 note 29. 

7. Colo. O'Brophy v. Bra Gold Mln. 
Co., 85 P. 679, 36 Colo. 247. 

Mo. In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055, 

331 Mo. 405. 
33 C.J. p 1072 note 30. 

8. Me. Ex parte Davis, 41 Me. 38, 
58. 

33 C.J. p 1072 note 31* 

9. Failure to give notice adjourn- 
ing ease was a mere irregularity, 
not invalidating judgment. Intercity 
Carnival Co. v. niions, 239 N.T.S. 
128, 136 Misc. 56. 

10. Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in, 
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 
418, 429, 147 dkl. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1132 note 79. 

11. U.S. Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C 

44 



C.A.Mo., 140 F.2d 852 In re Noell, 
C.C.A.MO., 93 F.2d 5 Smith v. 
Stark Trucking, D.C.Ohio. 53 F. 
Supp. 826 Fisher v. Jordan, D.C. 
Tex., 32 F.Supp. 608, reversed on 
other grounds, C.C.A., 116 F.2d 198, 
certiorari denied Jordan v. Fisher, 
61 S.Ct. 734, 312 U.S. 697, 85 U 
Ed. 1132. 

Cal. Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203 

Cal. 306. 
D.C. IT. S. ex reL Ordmann v. Cum- 

mings, 85 F.2d 273. 66 App. B.C. 

107. 
Ga. Elliott v. Adams, 160 S.E. 336, 

173 Ga. 312 Walton v. Wilkinson 

Bolton Co., 123 S.E. 103, 158 Ga, 

13. 
111. Alward v. Borah, 44 N.E.2d 865, 

381 111. 134 Hauser v. Power, 183 

N.E. 580, 351 111. 36 In re Shanks' 

Estate, 282 IlLApp. 1. 
Ky. Jasper v. Tartar. 7 S.W.2d 236, 

224 Ky. 834. 
Mo. Ex parte Irwin, 6 S.W.2d 597, 

320 Mo. 20 State ex reL National 

Lead Co. v. Smith, App., 134 S.W. 

2d 1061. 
N.J. Redzlna v. Provident Inst. for 

Savings in Jersey City, 125 A. 133, 

96 N.J.EQ. 346. 
N.T. Rochester Sav. Bank v. Mon- 
roe County, 8 N.Y.S.2d 107, 169' 

Misc. 526. 
N.D. Baird V. Ellison, 293 N.W. 

794, 70 N.D. 261. 
Or. Kerns v. Couch, 17 P.2d 323, 141 

Or. 147. 
Pa. In re Galli's Estate, 17 A.2d 

899, 340 Pa. 561. 
Tex. Bozeman v. Arlington Heights 

Sanitarium, Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 

350, error refused Moorhe-ad v. 

Transportation Bank of Chicago, 

111., Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 184. 
Va. Moore v. Smith, 15 S.E.2d 48, 

177 Va. 621. 
Wash. Morley v. Morley, 230 P. 645, 

131 Wash. 540. 
33 CJ. p 1080 note 96. 



49 C.J.S. 



.JUDGMENTS 



19 



ceedings following a proper summons to bring him 
before the court. 12 

19. Jurisdiction 

a. In general 

b. Jurisdiction of person 

c. Jurisdiction of subject matter or cause 

of action 

d. Jurisdiction of question determined 

and relief granted 



a. In General 

A judgment rendered by a court having no Jurisdic- 
tion Is a mere nullity. 

A judgment rendered by a court having no ju- 
risdiction is a mere nullity, and will be so held and 
treated whenever and for whatever purpose it is 
sought to be used or relied on as a valid judg- 
ment. 1 ^ Where a court is without jurisdiction, it 
is generally irregular to make any order in the 



12. Ariz. Potter v. Home Owners' 
Loan Corporation, 72 P.2d 429, 50 
Ariz. 285. 

Necessity of presence of parties at 
trial generally see the C.J.S. title 
Trial 40, also 64 C.J. p 69 note 
90-p 70 note 3. 

13. U.S. Green v. City of Stuart, 
C.C.A.Fla., 101 F.2d 309, certioraii 
denied 59 S.Ct 827, 307 U.S. 626, 
83 L.Ed. 1510 Albion-Idaho Land 
Co. v. Naf Irr. Co., C.OA.Utah, 
97 F.2d 439 In re Lake Champlain 
Pulp & Paper Corporation, B.C. 
N.Y., 20 F.2d 425. 

Cal. In re Gardiner's Estate, 114 
P.2d 643, 45 Cal.App.2d 559. 

Colo. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 
v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont 
County, 87 P.2d 761, 95 Colo. 435. 

D.C. U. S. ex rel. Tungsten Reef 
Mines Co. v. Ickes, 84 F.2d 257, 66 
App.D.C. 3. 

Fla. Mai one v. Meres, 109 So. 677, 
91 Fla. 709. 

Ga. City of Albany v. Parks, 5 S. 
E.2d 680, 61 GeuApp. 55. 

Idaho. East Side Lumber Co. T. 
Malmgren, 277 P. 554, 47 Idaho 
560 Williams v, Sherman, 212 P. 
971, 36 Idaho 494. 

111. Atkins v. Atkins, 65 N.E.2d 801, 
393 111. 202 Martin v. Schillo, 60 
N.E.2d 392, 389 111. 607, certiorari 
denied 65 S.Ct 1572, 325 U.S. 880, 
89 L.Ed. 1996 Sharp v. Sharp, 164 
N.B. 685, 333 111. 267 People v. 
Brewer, 160 N.B. 76, 328 111. 472 
Albers v. Bramberg, 32 N.E.2d 362, 
308 Ill.App. 463 Jardine v. Jar- 
dine, 9 N.E.2d 645, 291 Ill.App. 152 
Webster Grocer Co. v. Gammel, 1 
N.E.2d 890, 285 IlLApp. 277 Eddy 
v. Dodson, 242 Ill.App. 508 Gary v. 
Senseman, 215 Ill.App. 232. 

3towa. Stier v. Iowa State Travel- 
in? Men's Asa'n, 201 N.W. 328, 
199 Iowa 118, 59 A.L.R. 1384. 
:Ky. Thacker v. Phillips' Adm'r, 281 
S.W. 831, 213 Ky. 687. 

;La. Whitney Central Trust & Sav- 
ings Bank v. Norton, 102 So. 306, 
157 La, 199 Smith v. Shehee, 
App., 143 So. 339, amended 144 So. 
750. 

iMe. In re Williams' Estate, 41 A. 

2d 825, 141 Me. 219 Appeal of 

Kelley, 1 A.2d 183, 136 Me. 7. 

:*ld. Fooks* Ex*rs v. Ghingher, 192 

A. 782, 172 Md. 612, certiorari de- 



nied Phillips v. Ghingher, 58 S.Ct. 
47, 302 U.S. 726, 82 L.Ed. 561. 

Mass. Holt v. Holt, 153 N.B. 397, 
257 Mass. 114. 

Mich. Ward v. Hunter Machinery 
Co., 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445. 

Mo. In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055, 
331 Mo. 405 State ex rel. Hogan 
v. Meyers, App., 26 S.W.2d 816. 

Mont Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kun- 
neke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont. 117. 

N.J. Giresi v. Giresi, 44 A.2d 345 
Kaufman v. Smathers, 166 A. 
453, 111 N.J.Law 52 Corpus Juris 
cited in, Keller v. American Cya-n- 
amid Co., 28 A.2d 41, 46, 132 N.J. 
Bq. 210. . 

N.T. Oberlander v. Oberlander, 89 
N.T.S.2d 139, 179 Misc. 459 Cor- 
pus Juris quoted in Van Buren v. 
Harrison, 299 N.Y.S. 485, 486, 164 
Misc. 774 Clarke v. Carlisle Foun- 
dry Co., 270 N.T.S. 351, 150 Misc. 
710. 

N.C. Ward v. Agrillo, 139 S.B. 451, 
194 N.C. 321 Clark v. Carolina 
Homes, 128 S.E. 20, 189 N.C. 703. 

Ohio. Sampliner v. Bialosky, 25 
Ohio N.P.,N.S., 161. 

Okl. O. C. Whitaker, Inc., v. Dil- 
lingham, 152 P.2d 371, 194 Okl. 421 
Corpus Juris cited in Fltzsim- 
mons v. Oklahoma City, 135 P.2d 
340, 342, 192 Okl. 248 Hinkle v. 
Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 180 Okl. 17 
St Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. 
v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl. 
542 Henson v. Oklahoma State 
Bank, 23 P.2d 709, 165 Okl. 1 
Tulsa Terminal, Storage & Trans- 
fer Co. v, Thomas, 18 P.2d 891, 
162 OkL 5. 

Pa. In re Patterson's Estate, 19 A. 
2d 165, 341 Pa. 177 Mamlin v. 
Tener, 23 A.2d 90, 146 BauSuper. 
593-t-Mintz v. Mlntz, 83 Pa.Super. 
85. 

S.D. Hurley v. Coursey, 265 N.W. 4, 
64 S.D. 131 In re Schafer's Estate, 
209 N.W. 355, 50 S.D. 232, adhered 
to In re Schafer's Estate, 216 N. 
W. 948, 52 S.D. 182. 

Tenn. Johnson v. White, 106 S.W, 
2d 222, 171 Tenn. 536 Ward v. 
Lovell, 113 S*W.2d 759, 21 Tenn. 
App. 560 Western Automobile 
Casualty Co. v. Burnell, 71 S.W.2d 
474, 17 Tenn.App. 687. 

Tex. Conn v. Campbell, 24 S.W.2d 
813, 119 Tex. 82 Leslie v. Griffin, 

45 



Com. App., 25 S.W.2d 820 Renshaw 
v. Wise County, Civ.App., 142 S.W. 
2d 578 Green v. Duncan, Civ. App., 
134 S.W.2d 744 Galley v. Hedrick, 
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 978 Askew 
V. Roundtree, Civ.App., 120 S.W. 
2d 117, error dismissed Fowzer 
v. Huey & Philp Hardware Co., 
Civ.App. f 99 S.W.2d 1100, error 
dismissed Westerly Supply Cor- 
poration v. State, Civ. App., 89 S.W. 
2d 244 Corpus Juris cited in Wil- 
kinson v. Owens, Civ.App., 72 S.W. 
2d 330, 335 King v. King, Civ. 
App. t 291 S.W. 645 Glenn v. Dal- 
las County Bois D'Arc Island 
Levee Dist, Civ.App., 282 S.W. 339, 
reversed on other grounds Dallas 
County Bois D'Arc Island Levee 
Dist v. Glenn, Com.App., 288 S.W. 
165. 

Va. Corpus Juris cited in Bray v. 
Landergren, 172 S.B. 252, 257, 161 
Va. 699. 
Vt Roddy v. Fitzgerald's Estate, 

35 A,2d 668, 113 Vt. 472. 
Wash. Parr v. City of Seattle, 84 P. 

2d 375, 197 Wash. 53. 
W.Va.Perkins v. Hall, 17 S.E.2d 
795, 123 W.Va. 707 Corpus Jurto 
cited i Pettry v. Shi-nn, 196 S.E. 
385, 386, 120 W.Va. 20. 
33 C.J. p 1073 note 33. 
Jurisdiction generally see Courts 55 
15-119. 

"A judgment rendered without Ju- 
risdiction is a nullity and the party 
against whom it is entered may 
Ignore it and proceed as though no 
attempt had ever been made to ren- 
der it" Moeur v. Ashfork Livestock 
Co., 61 P.2d 395, 897, 48 Ariz. 298. 

Other statements of rule 

(1) Where a court acts without 
authority, its judgments are nulli- 
ties. 

D.C. TJ. S. ex rel. Ordmann v. Cum- 

mings, 85 F.2d 273, 66 App.D.C. 

107. 
Fla. Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677* 

91 Fla. 709. 
N.M. State v. Patten, 69 P.2d 931, 

41 N.M. 395. 

(2) Judgment is void where ju- 
risdictional fact on which court's 
authority to act depends is absent 
Turk v. Turk, 18 S.W.2d 1003. 230 
Ky. 191. 

(8) "Without jurisdiction there ia 
no validity or vitality to the 'Judg- 



19 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



cause except to dismiss the suit** The validity of 
a judgment depends on the jurisdiction of the court 
before rendition, not on what may occur subse- 
quently. 16 It has been stated, however, that it 
cannot be broadly asserted that a judgment is al- 
ways a nullity if jurisdiction of some sort or other 
is wanting. 1 ** 

Loss of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction which has once 
attached may be lost, and thereby the court may 
be deprived of the authority to make any further 
order or judgment, 17 as where the case has been 
taken up on appeal or error, 1 * or duly removed 
from a state court to a federal court. 19 So juris- 



diction may be lost and the authority of the court 
terminated by the expiration of the term without 
judgment rendered and without a proper continu- 
ance. 20 

Error in exercise of jurisdiction. Want of ju- 
risdiction must be distinguished from error in the 
exercise of jurisdiction. 21 Where jurisdiction has 
once attached, mere errors or irregularities in the 
proceedings, however grave, although they may ren- 
der the judgment erroneous and subject to be set 
aside in a proper proceeding for that purpose, will 
not render the judgment void, 22 and, as discussed 
infra 449, until set aside it is valid and binding 



." Carroll v. Berber, 150 N.B. 
870, 872. 255 Mass. 132. 

(4) A judgment rendered by a 
court without Jurisdiction is not a 
final and binding judgment. In re 
Waters' Estate, Mo.App., 153 S.W. 
2d 774. 

(5) A court cannot render valid 
judgment In case of which it has no 
potential jurisdiction.- Kirk v. Head, 
152 S.W.2d 726, 187 Tex. 44. 

(6) Where court is inherently 
without power to hear and deter- 
mine, any judgment rendered is a 
mere nullity. United Production 
Corporation v. Hughes, 152 S.W.2d 
327, 137 Tex. 21. 

14. U.S. New Orleans Mail Co. v. 
Flanders, La., 12 Wall. ISO, 20 L. 
Ed. 249. 

38 C.J. p 1074 note 37. 

15. Tex. Hicks v. Sias, Civ.App., 
102 S.W.2d 460, error refused. 

16. U.S. -Carter v. U. S., C.C.A.Ala., 
135 F.2d 858. 

Necessity of record 

A judgment is not void in the 
legal sense for want of jurisdiction 
unless its invalidity and want of 
Jurisdiction appear on the record, 
but is merely voidable. ^Tupe v. 
Home Owners Loan Corp., Okl., 167 
P,2d 46 Edwards v. Smith, 142 P. 
302, 42 Okl. 544. 
Jurisdictional defects as grounds for 

collateral attack on judgments see 

infra 421-427. 

17. HI. People ex rel. Waite v, 
Bristbw, 62 N.E.2d 545, 391 ffl. 
101 Watkins v. Dunbar, 149 N.B 
14, 318 I1L 174. 

Ky. Combs v. Beaton, 251 S.W. 638 

199 Ky. 477. 
Wis. State ex reL Lang v. Civil 

Court of Milwaukee County. 280 

N.W. 347, 228 Wis. 411. 
33 C.J. p 1074 note 38. 
Ancillary matter 

Where jurisdiction to render 
judgment is ended, no jurisdiction 
remains as to matter purely ancil 
lary to that object, Cutrone v. Cut 
rone, 29 N.T.S.2d 405, 176 Miac, 988 



affirmed 80 N.T.S.2d 813, 262 App. 
Div. 992. 

18. Mass. Boynton v. Foster, 7 
Mete. 415. 

19. Minn. Roberts v. Chicago, St. 
P. M. & O. R. Co., 51 N.W. 478, 
48 Minn. 521. 

20. Wis. Witt v. Henze, 16 N.W. 
609, 58 Wis. 244. 

Rendition of judgment during term 
see supra 8 16 b. 

21. Mich. Corpus Juris quoted i 
Jackson City Bank & Trust Co. v. 
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271 
Mich. 538. ' 

Wash. In re Waters of Doan Creek, 
299 P. 383. 162 Wash. 695. 

22. Ala. Corpus Juris cited in 
James v. State, 181 So. 709, 712, 
28 Ala. App. 225. 

Ark. Corpus Juris cited in, Ex parte 
O'Neal, 87 S.W.2d 401, 403, 191 
Ark. 696. 

Fla. Childs v. Boots, 152 So. 212, 
112 Fla. 277 Malone v. Meres, 109 
So. 677, 91 Fla. 709. 

Ga. Lester v. Southern Security Co., 
147 S.B. 529, 168 Ga, 307 Corpus 
Juris cited in Georgia Power Co. v. 
Friar, 171 S.B. 210, 214, 47 Ga.App. 
675, affirmed 175 S.B. 807, 179 Ga. 
470. 

Idaho. Baldwin v. Anderson, 299 P. 
341, 50 Idaho 606, certiorari grant- 
ed American Surety Co. of New 
York v. Baldwin, 52 S.Ct. 499, 286 
U.S. 536, 76 L.Ed. 1275, and certio- 
rari dismissed American Surety 
Co. v. Baldwin, 53 S.Ct. 98, 287 U. 
S. 166, 77 L.Ed. 231, 86 A.L.R. 

HI. Heitman Trust Co. v. Parlee, 40 
N.E.2d 732, 314 IlLApp. 83 Corpus 
Juris cited in. Hampton v. Grissom, 
4 N.B.2d 895, 287 IlLApp. 294 
Seither & Cherry Co. v. Board of 
Education of District No. 15, Town 
of La Harpe, 283 IlLApp. 892 
Knapik v. Stefek, 274 IlLApp. 19 

Ind. Freimann v. Gallmeier, App., 
63 N.E.2d 150. 

Ky. Stewart v. Sampson, 148 S.W.2d 
278, 285 Ky. 447 Henderson v. 
Commonwealth, 251 S.W. 988, 199 
Ky. 795. 

46 



Mich. Corpus Juris quoted In Jack- 
son City Bank & Trust Co. v. 
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271 
Mich. 538. 

N.C. Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.B. 815, 
190 N.C. 536. 

Okl. Protest of St. Louis-San Fran- 
cisco Ky. Co., 26 P.2d 212, 166 Okl. 
50. 

Or. Lytle v. Payette-Oregon Slope 
Irr. Dist, 152 P.2d 934, 156 A.L.R. 
894. 

Tex. Corpus Juris cited in, Texas 
Employers* Ins. Ass'n v. Bzell, 
Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 1018, 1019, 
rehearing denied 16 S.W.2d 528 
Waples Platter Co. v. Miller, 
Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 833 Ameri- 
can Law Book Co. v. Dykes, Civ. 
App., 278 S.W. 247. 

Wash. Corpus Juris quoted in In re 
Waters of Doan Creek in Walla 
Walla County, 299 P. 883, 162 
Wash. 695. 

Wyo. State v. District Court of 
Eighth Judicial Dist. within and 
for Natrona County, 260 P. 174, 37 
Wyo. 169. 
33 C.J. P 1079 note 8234 C.J. p 508 

note 7. 

Operation and effect of void and 
voidable judgments see infra 55 
449-452. 

Other statements of rule 

(1) A Judgment is <not void, even 
though it may be erroneous if court 
had jurisdiction of person of defend- 
ant and of the subject matter of the 
suit and had power to render par- 
ticular Judgment which it entered, 
and such a Judgment is valid until 
reversed. People ex rel. Merrill v. 
Hazard, 196 N.E. 827, 361 HI. 60. 

(2) Where court of general Juris- 
diction has Jurisdiction of subject 
matter and parties, no Judgment it 
may render within the issues is void, 
however erroneous it may be. City 
of Huntington v. Northern Indiana 
Power Co., 5 N.B.2d 889, 211 Ind. 502, 
dissenting opinion 6 N.B.2d 335, 211 
Ind. 502. 

(3) Where a court has Jurisdiction 
over the person and the subject 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



19 



for all purposes. Error in the determination of 
questions of law or fact on which the court's ju- 
risdiction in the particular case depends, the court 
having general jurisdiction of the cause and the 
person, is error in the exercise of jurisdiction. 23 



1>. Jurisdiction of Person 

A judgment in personam Is void unless the court 
has jurisdiction of the persons Involved. 

A judgment in personam is void unless the court 
has jurisdiction of the persons involved. 24 The 



matter, no error in the exercise of 
such jurisdiction can make the judg- 
ment void even if there is a funda- 
mental error of law appearing on the 
face of the record and such judgment 
is valid until avoided. Mahaffa v. 
Mahaffa, 298 N.W. 916, 230 Iowa 679. 

(4) A judgment is never void for 
error, provided the court rendering 
it had jurisdiction over the person 
of the defendant and the subject 
matter of the action. Sheridan v* 
Sheridan, 4 N.W.2d 785, 218 Minn. 24. 
Property rights 

Where a court in the exercise of 
its jurisdiction enters a decree af- 
fecting property rights contrary to 
statute, the court is guilty of error 
of judgment, but such error does not 
render the decree void, nor does the 
fact that the error may appear on 
the face of the decree itself indi- 
cate its nullity. In re Gardiner's 
Estate, 114 P.2d 648, 45 Cal.App.2d 
659. 

23. Ala. Corpus Juris cited in 
James v. State, 181 So. 709, 712, 
28 Ala.App. 225. 

Ariz. Wall v. Superior Court of 
Tavapai County, 89 P.2d 624, 58 
Ariz. 344. 

Mich. Corpus Juris quoted in Jack- 
son City Bank & Trust Co. v. 
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271 
Mich. 588. 

Tex. Corpus Juris quoted in Fergu- 
son v. Ferguson, Civ.App., 98 S.W. 
2d 847, 850. 

33 C.J. p 1079 note 88. 

24. U.S. Buss v. Prudential Ins. 
Co. of America, COAJowa, 126 
F.2d 960 Mulcahy v. Whitehill, 
D.C.Mass., 48 F.Supp. 917 In re 
American Fidelity Corporation, D. 
C.Cal., 28 F.Supp. 462 Baskin v. 
Montedonico, D.CTenn., 26 F.Supp. 
894, affirmed, C.C.A., 115 F.2d 837 
U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guar- 
anty Co., D.C.Okl., 24 F.Supp. 961, 
modified on other grounds, C.C.A., 
106 F.2d 804, reversed on other 
grounds 60 S.Ct 653, 309 U.S. 506, 
84 L.Bd. 894. 

Ala.- Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d 153, 
243 Ala. 389 Ex parte Kelly, 128 
So. 443, 221 Ala. 339 Corpus JHxi 
cited in Ex parte Whitehead, 199 
So. 876, 878, 29 Ala,App. 583, cer- 
tiorari denied 199 So. 879, 240 
Ala. 447. 

Alaska. In re Young's Estate, 9 
Alaska 158. 

Ariz. Varnes v. White, 12 P.2d 870, 
40 Ariz. 427. 

Cal. Hunter v. Superior Court in 



and for Riverside County, 97 P.2d 
492, 36 Cal.App.2d 100 Northing- 
ton v. Industrial Accident Commis- 
sion, 72 P.2d 909, 23 Cal.App.2d 
255 Ex parte Cohen, 290 P. 512, 
107 CaLApp. 288 Jellen v. O'Brien, 
264 P. 1115, 89 CaLApp. 505. 

Conn. O'Leary v. Waterbury Title 
Co., 166 A. 673, 117 Conn. 39. 

D.C. U. S. ex rel. Ordmann v. Cum- 
mings, 85 F.2d 273, 66 App.D.C. 
.107. 

Fia, United Brotherhood of Car- 
penters and Joiners of America v. 
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153 
Fla. 529 Skipper v. Schumacker, 

169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 384, appeal dis- 
missed and certiorarl denied 57 
S.Ct 39, 299 U.S. 507, 81 L.Ed. 
376 Coslick v. Finney, 140 So. 216, 
104 Fla. 394. 

Ga. McKnight v. Wilson, 122 S.E. 
702, 158 Ga. 153 W. T. Rawleigh 
Co. v. Greenway, 26 S.K2d 458, 69 
Ga.App. 590 Anderson v. Turner, 
133 S.E. 306, 35 Ga.App. 428. 

HI. People ex reL Fisher v. Balti- 
more & O. R. Co., 61 N.E.2d 382, 
390 111. 389 Heitman Trust Co. v. 
Parlee, 40 N.E.2d 732, 314 Ill.App. 
83 Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Cham- 
bers, 38 N.E.2d 544, 312 Ill.App. 
382 Davis v. Oliver, 25 N.E.2d 
905, 304 IlLApp. 71 In re Shanks' 
Estate, 282 Ill.App. 1. 

Ind. Calumet Teaming & Trucking 
Co. v. Young, 33 N.B.2d 109, 218 
Ind. 468, rehearing denied 33 N.E. 
2d 583, 218 Ind. 468. 

Ky. Hill v. Walker, 180 S.W.2d 93, 
297 Ky. 257, 154 A.L.R. 814 Gover 
v. Wheeler, 178 S.W.2d 404, 296 
Ky. 734 Max Ams, Inc., v. Barker, 

170 S.W.2d 45, 293 Ky. 698 Wag- 
ner v. Peoples Building & Loan 
Ass'n, 167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691 
Lowther v. Moss, 39 S.W.2d 501, 
239 Ky, 290 Lorton v. Ashbrook, 
295 S.W. 1027, 220 Ky. 830. 

Mass. Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.E. 
870, 255 Mass. 132. 

Mo. State ex reL National Lead Co. 
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061. 

N.Y. Carbone v. Carbone, 2 N.T.S. 
2d 869, 166 Misc. 924 Corpus Jo- 
ris quoted, in Universal Credit Co. 
v. Blfoxderman, 288 N.T.S. 79, 80, 
158 Misc. 917 In re Killough's Es- 
tate, 265 N.Y.S. 301, 148 Misc. 73 
Shaul v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of 
Maryland, 227 N.Y.S. 163, 131 Misc. 
401, affirmed 230 N.Y.S. 910, 224 
App.Div. 773. 

N.C. Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128 
S.B. 20, 189 NXX 703. 

Ohio. Terry v. Claypool, 65 N.E.2d 

47 



883, 77 Ohio App. 77 Ruckert v. 
Matil Realty, App., 40 N.E.2d 688 
Sampliner v. Bialosky, 25 Ohio 
N.P..N.S., 161. 

Okl. Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City, 
135 -P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248 Okla- 
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d 
531, 179 Okl. 309 Moroney v. State 
ex reL Southern Surety Co., 31 P. 
2d 926, 168 Okl. 69 Henson v. Ok- 
lahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709, 
165 Okl. i State v. Armstrong, 13 
P.2d 198, 158 Okl. 290. 

Tex. Kuteman v. Ratliff, Civ.App., 
154 S.W.2d 684 Olton State Bank 
v. Howell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 
287 San Jacinto Finance Corpo- 
ration v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S. 
W.2d 1213 Simms Oil Co. v. 
Butcher, Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d 192, 
error dismissed Reed v. State, 
Cr., 187 S.W.2d 660. 

Va. Robertson v. Commonwealth, 
25 S.E.2d 352, 181 Va. 520, 146 
A.L.R. 966. 

33 C.J. p 1074 note 43. 

Other statements of ruU 

(1) Jurisdiction of the person is 
essential to the rendition of a valid 
judgment. 

Cal. Jellen v. O'Brien, 264 P. 1115, 
89 CaLApp. 505. 

Fla. Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass'n 
v. Hollingsworth, 185 So. 431, 135 
Fla. 322. 

Mich. Ward v. Hunter Machinery 
Co., 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445. 

N.M. State ex rel. State Tax Com- 
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 889, 
44 N.M. 260 In re Field's Es- 
tate, 60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423. 

Tex. -Commander v. Bryon, Civ.App., 
123 S.W.2d 1008. 

Vt. In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A. 
471, 109 Vt 108. 

(2) Jurisdiction of the party, ob- 
tained by the court in some way al- 
lowed by law, is essential to enable 
the court to give a valid judgment 
against him. Powell v. Turpin, 29 
S.E.2d 26, 224 N.C. 67 City of Mon- 
roe v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N. 
C. 362 Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d 
429, 219 N.C. 465. 

(3) It is essential to the efficacy 
of a judgment that the court have 
jurisdiction over the person. Crab- 
tree v. ^Btna Life Ins. Co., Ill S.W. 
2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173. 

A judgment or portion thereoi 
which attempts to settle rights of 
parties, over whom the court has no 
jurisdiction, is void as to such par- 
ties. Barrett v. Board of Com'rs of 
Tulsa County, 90 P.2d 442, 185 Okl. 
111. 



19 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



court must have jurisdiction of plaintiff or the 
person in whose favor it is rendered, 26 and also of 
defendant or the person against whom it is ren- 
dered. 26 Accordingly a judgment for or against 
one who for any reason is no longer before the 
court is wholly void. 27 Where a statute requires 
that certain actions shall be brought only in the 
district or county where defendant resides, it has 
been held that no jurisdiction of the person of de- 
fendant can be obtained in any district or county 
other than the one in which he resides, if defendant 
stands on his privilege, and a judgment against Mm 
in such other district or county is void for want of 
jurisdiction. 2 * 

Consent. Where the court has jurisdiction of the 
subject matter or cause of action, jurisdiction of the 
parties may be conferred by their consent, and in 
such cases the judgment is valid, 2 & as where de- 



fendant waives an exemption from suit and consents 
to be sued, 80 or waives the privilege of being sued 
only in a particular place, county, or district, and 
consents to be sued in some other place, county, or 
district, 31 except where the rights of other persons 
would be prejudiced 32 or some rule of public pol- 
icy requires that defendant shall be sued only in a 
designated place. 88 

c. Jurisdiction of Subject Matter or Cause of 
Action 

A court cannot render a valid Judgment unless ft 
has Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litiga- 
tion or the cause of action. 

Even with fuir jurisdiction over the parties, no 
court can render a valid judgment unless it also has 
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litiga- 
tion or the cause of action. 84 A judgment is whol- 
ly void in cases where the subject matter is with-. 



25. N.Y. In re Clark's Witt, 8 N.Y. 

S.2d 364, 166 Misc. 909 Corpus 

Juris quoted in Universal Credit 

Co. v. Binderman, 288 N.Y.a 79, 

80, 15 Misc. 917. 
38 C.J. p 1075 note 44. 
28. Iowa, Allen v. Allen. 298 N.W. 

869. 230 Iowa 504, 136 A.L.R. 617. 
Miss. Bank of Richton v. Jones, 

121 So. 823, 153 Miss. 796. 
Mo. Noll v. Alexander, App., 282 

S.W. 739. 
Neb. Hassett v. Durbin, 271 N.W. 

867, 132 Neb. 315. 
Teat. Maury v. Turner, Cora.App., 

244 S.W. 809. 
Va. Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S,E.2d 548, 

179 Va. 715. 
Wash. Colby v. Hiraes, 17 P.2d 606, 

171 Wash. 83. 
33 C.J. p 1075 note 45. 

27. N.T. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Universal Credit Co. v. Binderman, 
288 N.T.S. 79, 80, 15 Misc. 917. 

33 C.J. p 1075 note 48. 

28. La. Alter v. Pickett, 24 La. 
Ann. 513. 

33 C.J. p 1075 note 51. 

29. Md. C. L T. Corporation v. 
Powell, 170 A. 740, 166 Md. 208. 

33 C.J. p 1078 note 77. 

33. Mass. Hall v. Young, 8 Pick. 

80, 15 Am.D. 180. 
33 C.J. p 1078 <note 78. 

31. Tex. Lloyds Casualty Co. of 
New York v. Lena, Civ.App., 62 S. 
W.2d 497, error dismissed. 

33 C.J. p 1078 note 79. 

32. Ga. Raney v. McRae, 14 Ga. 
589, 60 Am.D. 660. 

33 C.J. p 1078 note 80. 

33. Ga. Central Bank t. Gibson, 11 
Ga. 453. 

Creditors 

Where neither of defendants was 
domiciled in the county in which 
suit was brought, a judgment in fa- 



vor of a creditor has been held void 
as to other creditors. Anthony v. 
Bobo, 81 S.E. 128, 141 Ga. 440. 

34. U.S. Kerna/n v. Campbell, C.C. 
A.N.Y., 45 F.2d 123 In re Ameri- 
can Fidelity Corporation, D.C.Cal., 
28 F.Supp, 462 U. S. v, U. S. Fi- 
delity & Guaranty Co., D.C.Okl., 
24 F.Supp. 961, modified on other 
grounds, C.C.A., 106 F.2d 804, re- 
versed on other grounds 60 S.Ct 
654, -309 U.S. 506, 84 L.Ed. 894. 

Ala. Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d 
153, 243 Ala. 389 Ex parte Kelly, 
128 So. 443, 221 Ala. 339. 

Ariz. Varnes v. White, 12 P.2d 870, 
40 Ariz. 427. 

Ark. Axley v. Hammock, 50 S.W. 
2d 608, 185 Ark. 939. 

Cal. Northington v. Industrial Acci- 
dent Commission, 72 P.2d 909, 23 
Cal.App.2d 255 Ex parte Cohen, 
290 P. 512, 107 CaLApp. 288 Jel- 
len v. O'Brien, 264 P.2d 1115, 89 
Cal.App. 505. 

Conn. O'Leary v* Waterbury Title 
Co., 166 A, 673, 117 Conn. 39. 

Flo. United Brotherhood of Carpen- 
ters and Joiners of America v. 
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153 
Fla. 529 Arcadia Citrus Growers 
Ass'n v. Hollingsworth, 185 So. 
431, 135 Fla. 322 Skipper v. Schu- 
macker, 169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 384, 
appeal dismissed and certiorari de- 
nied 57 S.Ct. 39, 299 U.S. 507, 81 
L.Bd. 376 Coslick v. Finney, 140 
So. 216. 104 Fla. 394. 

Ga. Deans v. Deans, 137 S.E. 829, 
164 Ga. 162 McKenzie v. Perdue, 
19 S.B.2d 765, 67 Ga.App. 202, re- 
versed on other grounds Perdue 
v. McKenzie, 21 S.B.2d 705, 194 
G*a. 356, vacated McKenzie v. Per- 
due, 23 S.E.2d 183, 68 Ga.App. 
498 Robinson v. Attapulgus Clay 
Co., 189 S.E. 555, 55 Ga.App. 141 
Corpus Juris cited la Georgia 

48 



Power Co. v. Friar, 171 S.E. 210, 
214, 47 Ga.App. 675. 

Hawaii. Meyer v. Territory, 36 Ha- 
waii 75 Wong Kwai Tong v. Choy 
Yin, 31 Hawaii 603. 

111. -People ex rel. Fisher v. Balti- 
more & O. R. Co., 61 N.E.2d 382, 
390 111. 389 Martin v. Schillo, 60 
N.E.2d 392, 389 111. 697, certiorari 
denied 65 S.Ct 1572, 325 U.S. 880, 
89 L.Ed. 1996 Herb v. Pitcaim, 61 
N.B.2d 277, 384 HI. 237, reversed 
on other grounds 65 S.Ct 954, 325 
U.S. 77, 89 L.Ed. 1483, rehearing 
denied 65 S.Ct 1188, 325 U.S. 8-93, 
89 L.Ed. 2005. Opinion supple- 
mented 64 N.E.2d 318, 392 HI. 
151 Werner v. Illinois Cent R. 
Co., 42 NJS.2d 82, 379 HI. 559 
Heitman Trust Co. v. Parlee, 40 
N.B.2d 732, 314 Ill.App. 83 Sun- 
beam Heating Co. v. Chambers, 38 
N.B.2d 544, 312 IlLApp. 382 Davis 
v. Oliver, 25 N.B.2d 905, 304 111. 
App. 71, transferred, see 20 N.E.2d 
582, 371 111. 287 In re Shanks' 
Estate, 282 Ill.App. 1. 

Ind. Calumet Teaming & Trucking 
Co. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d 109, 218 
Ind. 468, rehearing denied 33 N.E. 
2d 583, 210 Ind. 468 Brown v. 
State, 37 N.B.2d 73, 219 Ind. 251, 
137 A.L.B. 679. 

Kan. Corpus Juris cited in Starke 
v. Starke, 125 P.2d 738, 740, 155 
Kan. 331 Corpus Juris quoted in 
.Board of Commissioners of Craw- 
ford County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 
387, 134 Kan. 704. 

Ky. -Max Ams, Inc. v. Barker, 170 
S.W.2d 45, 293 Ky. 698 Wagner 
v. Peoples Building & Loan Ass'n, 
167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691 
Lowther v. Moss, 89 S.W.2d 501, 
239 Ky, 290 Lorton v. Asbrook, 
295 S.W. 102?, 220 Ky. 830. 

La. Jones v. Crescent City Ice Mfg. 
Co., -3 La.App. 7 State ex rel. 
FOUXTOUX v. Board of Directors of 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



19 



held from the jurisdiction of the particular court, or 
is placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of anoth- 
er court, 85 or where the jurisdiction depends on a 
statute which was repealed before suit. 86 Where 
the jurisdiction of a court depends on the amount 
in controversy, a judgment for a sum in excess of 
the amount over which the court has jurisdiction is 
void. 87 

Consent of parties. Since the agreement or con- 
sent of the parties cannot give the court the right 
to adjudicate on any cause of action or subject mat- 
ter which the law lias withheld from its cogni- 



zance, any judgment rendered in such a case is void 
notwithstanding such consent or agreement. 88 

<L Jurisdiction of Question Determined and Be- 
lief Granted 

It Is necessary to the validity of a Judgment that 
the court should have jurisdiction of the question which 
its judgment assumes to decide, and jurisdiction to ren- 
der a judgment for the particular remedy or relief which 
the judgment undertakes to grant. 

In addition to jurisdiction of the parties and the 
subject matter, it is necessary to the validity of a 
judgment that the court should have jurisdiction of 



Public Schools of Jefferson Parish, 
3 La,App. 2. 

Mass. Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.B. 
870, 255 Mass. 132. 

Mich. Ward v. Hunter Machinery 
Co.. 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445. 

Mo. Crabtree v. .SDtna Life Ins. Co., 
Ill S.W.2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173 
State ex rel. National Lead Co. v. 
Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061 
Noll v. Alexander. App., 282 S.W. 
739. 

N.J. Fidelity Union Trust Co, v. 
Ackerman, 191 A. 813, 121 N.J.BQ. 
497. modified on other grounds 
199 A. 379, 123 N.J.Eq.. 556. 

N.M. State ex rel. Slate Tax Com- 
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 389, 
44 N.M. 260 In re Field's Estate, 
60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423. 

N.T. Anonymous v. Anonymous, 22 
N.Y.S.2d 598, 174 Misc. 906 Cor- 
pus Juris quoted In Van Buren v. 
Harrison. 299 N.Y.S. 485, 486, 164 
Misc. 774 Universal Credit Co. v. 
Blinderman, 2*8 N.T.S. 79, 158 
Misc. 917 MacAffer v. Boston & 
M. R. R., 273 N.Y.S. 679, 242 App. 
Div. 140. affirmed 197 N.E. 328, 268 
N.Y. 400 Shaul v. Fidelity & De- 
posit Co. of Maryland, 227 N.Y.S. 
163. 131 Misc. 401, affirmed 230 N. 
Y.S. 910, 224 App.Div. 773. 

N.C. Clark v. Caroltea Homes. 128 
S.E. 20, 189 N.C. 703. 

Ohio. Ruckert v. Matil Realty Co., 
App. f 40 N.E.2d 688 Sampliner v. 
Bialasky, 25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 161. 

Okl. Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City, 
135 P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248 Okla- 
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d 
531, 179 Okl. 309 Moroney v. State 
ex rel. Southern Surety Co., 31 P. 
2d 926, 168 Okl. 69 Henson v. 
Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709, 
165 Okl. 1 State v. Armstrong. 18 
P.2d 198, 158 Okl. 290. 

8.C. Betsill v. Betsill, 196 S.E. 381, 
187 S.C. 50. 

8.D. Reddin v. Frick, 223 N.W. 50, 
54 S.D. 277. 

Teun. Manning v. Feidelson, 186 S. 
W.2d 510, 175 Ten*. 676. 

Tex. Campsey v. Brumley, Com, 
App M 55 S.W.2d 810 H, H. Wat- 
son Co* v. Cobb Grain Co., Com. 
App., 292 S.W. 174 Maury v. Tur- 
ner. CbnuApp., 244 S.W. 809 

49 C.J.S.-4 



Kuteman v. Ratlin!, Civ.App., 154 

S.W.2d 864 Commander v. Bryan, 

Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 1008 Olton 

State Bank v. Howell, Civ.App., 105 

S.W.2d 287 Reed v. State, Cr., 187 

S.W.2d 660. 
Va. Robertson v. Commonwealth, 

25 S.E.2d 852, 181 Va. 520, 146 A. 

L.R. 966 Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.E. 

2d 548, 179 Va. 715 Barnes v. 

American Fertilizer Co., 130 S.E. 

902, 144 Va. 692. 
Vt. In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A. 

471, 109 Vt. 108. 
Wash. Colby v. Himes, 17 P.2d 606, 

171 Wash. 83. 
W.Va. Corpus Juris cited in Hus- 

tead v. Boggess, 12 S.E.2d 514, 

515, 122 W.Va. 493. 
33 C.J. p 1075 note 61. 

Nullity of judgment results from 
want of jurisdiction over the sub- 
ject matter. 
Cal. Hunter v. Superior Court In 

and for Riverside County, 97 P. 

2d 492, 36 CaI.App.2d 100. 
Tex. San Jacinto Finance Corpora- 
tion v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S.W. 

2d 1213. 
General and special jurisdiction. 

The rule that jurisdiction is of 
two kinds, jurisdiction of the sub- 
ject matter and jurisdiction of the 
person and that both must concur 
or judgment will be void in any 
case in which court has assumed to 
act, refers to general jurisdiction 
vested in court and applies to spe- 
cial jurisdiction only to extent court 
exceeds special jurisdiction granted. 
Herb v. Pitcairn, 64 N.E.2d 519, 
392 111. 138. 

35. U.S. Woods Bros. Const Co. v. 
Yankton County, C.C.A.S.D., 54 F. 
2d 304 Corpus Juris cited in U. 
S. v. Turner, C.C.A.N.D., 47 F.2d 
86, 89. 

Kan. Corpus Juris quoted in Board 
of Commissioners of Crawford 
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 887, 
134 Jan. 704. 

33 C.J. P 1076 note 62. 

36. Kan. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Board of Commissioners of Craw- 
ford County v. Radley, 8 P.2d S86, 
387, 134 Kan. 704. 

49 



Neb. Omaha Coal, Coke & Lime Co. 
v. Suess, 74 N.W. 620, 54 Neb. 879. 

37. Tenn. Reynolds v. Hamilton, 77 
S.W.2d 986, 18 Tenn.App. 380. 

Tex. Davis v. Jordan, Civ.App., 151 

S.W.2d 291. 
33 C.J. p 1076 note 68. 
Separation, of single cause of action 

Judgments rendered in a court of 
limited jurisdiction in separate ac- 
tions brought by landlord for sepa- 
rate past-due installments of rent, 
the total of which installments ex- 
ceeded the jurisdiction of the court, 
was void for want of Jurisdiction, 
Jn view of attempted separation of 
single cause of action. F. W. Wool- 
worth & Co. v. Zimmerman; 17$ A. 
474, 13 N.J.Misc. 505. 

38. Ala. Ex parte Phillips, 165 So. 
SO, 231 Ala. 364 Crabtree v. Mil- 
ler, 155 So. 529, 229 Ala. 103. 

Ark. Hendricks v. Henson, 92 S.W. 

2d 867, 192 Ark. 544. 
La. Walker v. Fitzgerald, App., 24 

So.2d 263. 
Mo. In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055, 

331 Mo. 405. 
N.J. Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. 

Ackerman, 191 A. 813, 121 N.J. 

Eq. 497, modified on other grounds 

199 A. 379, 123 N.J.B<i. 556. 
N.Y. In re Brerman's Estate, 221 N. 

Y.S. 462, 129 Misc. 283. 
Ohio. Bobala v. Bobala, 33 N.E. 

2d 845, 68 Ohio App. 63. 
Va. Nolde Bros. v. Chalkley, 35 S. 

B.2d 827. 
W.Va. Corpus Juris cited in BXi- 

stead v. Boggess, 12 S.E.2d 514, 

615, 122 W.Va. 493. 
33 C.J. p 1077 note 75. 
Estoppel 

(1) It has been held that when- 
ever there is want of authority to 
hear and determine subject matter 
of controversy, an adjudication on 
merits is null, and does not estop 
even assenting party. Cooper v. Da- 
vis, 248 N.Y.S. 227, 231 App.Div. 527. 

(2) It has been held, however, 
that one who invokes the jurisdic- 
tion of the court cannot object to a 
judgment on the ground that the 
court had n jurisdiction of defend- 
ant. Fostoria v. Fox, 54 NJE. 370, 
60 Ohio St. 340. 



19 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



the question which its judgment assumes to de- 
cide, 39 and jurisdiction to render a judgment for 
the particular remedy or relief which the judg- 



ment undertakes to grant. 40 Where the court does 
not have such jurisdiction, the judgment is void. 41 



39. Idaho. Corpus Juris guoted in 
Banbury v. Brailsford, 158 P.2d 
8*26, 886 Corpus Juris quoted in 
Baldwin v. Anderson, 8 P.2d 461, 
462, 51 Idaho 614 -Maloney v. 
Zipf, 287 P. 632, 41 Idaho 30. 

Kan. Corpus Juris gaoted in Board 
of Commissioners of Crawford 
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 387, 
134 Kan. 704. 

Mo.State ex rel. National Lead Co. 
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061 
Corpus Juris cited in, Mesendleck 
Grain Co. v. Folz, 50 S.W.2d 159, 
161, 227 Mo.App. 24. 

Ohio. Sampliner v. Bialasky, 25 
Ohio N.P..N.S., 161. 

N.M. State ex rel. State Tax Com- 
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 389, 
44 N.M. 260 In re Field's Estate, 
60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423. 

Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in Hinkle 
V. Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 1076, 180 
Okl. 17 Corpus Juris quoted in 
Oklahoma City v. Robinson, 65 P. 
2d 531, 533, 179 Okl. 309 Corpus 
Juris quoted in Whltehead v. 
Bunch, 272 P. 878, 879, 134 Okl. 
63. 

Va. Hubbard v. Davis, 25 S.B.2d 
256, 181 Va. 549 Drewry v. Doyle, 
20 S.B.2d 548, 179 Va, 715. 

33 C.J. p 1076 note 70. 

Determination of Jurisdiction 
Jurisdiction to render judgment in 

particular action must be determined 

and tested by pleadings and relief 

sought. Borfcng v. Dodd, 217 N.W. 

580, 116 Neb. 336. 

40. U.S. U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity & 
Guaranty Co., D.C.OkL, 24 F.Supp. 
961, modified on other grounds 106 
F.2d 804, reversed on other 
grounds 60 S.Ct. 653. 309 U.S. 506, 
84 L.Ed. 894. 

Ariz. Wall v. Superior Court of 
Yavapal County, 89 P.2d 624, 53 
Ariz. 344 Hill v. Favour, 84 P. 
3d 675, 52 Ariz. 561 Varnes v. 
White, 12 P.2d 870, 40 Ariz. 427 
Arizona Land & Stock Co. v. 
Markus, 296 P. 251, 37 Ariz. 530 
Western Land & Cattle Co. v. 
National Bank of Arizona at Phoe- 
nix, 239 P. 299, 29 Ariz. 61. 

Cai. Jellen v. O'Brien, 264 P. 1115, 
89 CaLApp. 505. 

Colo. Williams v. Hankins, 225 P. 
243, 75 Colo. 136 People v. Burke. 
212 P. 837, 72 Colo. 486, 30 A.L.R. 
1085. 

Fla, United Brotherhood of Carpen- 
ters and Joiners of America v. 
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153 
Fla. 529 Arcadia Citrus Growers 
Ass'n y. Hollingsworth, 185 So. 
431, 135 Fla. 322 Skipper v. 
Schumacher, 169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 
384, appeal dismissed and certio- 
rari denied 57 S.Ct 39, 299 U.S. 



507, 81 L.Ed. 376 Chllds v. Boots, 
152 So. 212, 112 Fla, 277 Coslick 
v. Finney, 140 So. 216, 104 Fla, 
394. 

Idaho. Corpus Juris quoted in Ban- 
bury v. Brailsford, 158 P.2d 826, 
836 Corpus Juris quoted in Bald- 
win v. Anderson, 8 P.2d 461, 462, 
51 Idaho 614 Maloney v. Zipf, 237 
P. 632, 41 Idaho 30. 

111. Hummel v.'Cardwell, 62 N.B.2d 
433, 390 111. 5-26, certiorari denied 
66 S.Ct. 819, three oases Toman 
v. Park Castles Apartment Bldg. 
Corporation, 31 N.E.2d 299, 375 111. 
293 Mclnness v. Oscar F. Wilson 
Printing Co., 258 Ill.App. 161. 

Kan. Corpus Juris quoted in Board 
of Commissioners of Crawford 
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 387, 
134 Kan. 704. 

Ky. Lowther v. Moss, 39 S.W.2d 
501, 239 Ky. 290. 

Mass. New England Home for Deaf 
Mutes v. Leader Filling Stations 
Corporation, 177 N.E. 97, 276 Mass. 
153. 

Okl. Fitzslmmons v. Oklahoma 
City, 135 P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248 
Corpus Juris quoted in Hfeikle v. 
Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 1076, 180 
Okl. 17 Corpus Juris quoted in 
Oklahoma City v. Robinson, 65 P. 
2d 531, 533, 179 Okl. 309 Henson 
v. Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 
709, 165 Okl. 1 Corpus Juris quot- 
ed in Whitehead v. Bunch, 272 P. 
878, 879, 134 Okl. 63. 

Tex. Nymon v. Eggert, Civ.App., 
154 S.W.2d 157. 

Utah. Hampshire v. Woolley, 269 
P. 135, 72 Utah 106. 

Va. Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.B.2d 548, 
179 Va. 715 Hubbard v. Davis, 25 
S.E.2d 256, 181 Va. 549 Corpus 
Juris cited in .astna Casualty & 
Surety Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. 
Board of Supervisors of Warren 
Co., 168 S.E. 617, 626, 160 Va. 
11. 

33 C.J. p 1076 note 71. 

Court of general Jurisdiction 

Even a court of general jurisdic- 
tion has no power to render any 
judgment affecting persons or prop- 
erty, unless the particular judgment 
is brought within court's jurisdic- 
tion according to law. Herb v. Pit- 
cairn, 51 N.B.2d 277, 384 111. 237, 
reversed on other grounds 65 S.Ct 
954, 326 U.S. 77, 89 L.Ed. 1483, re- 
hearing denied 66 S.Ct. 1188, 325 U. 
S. 893, 89 L.Ed. 2005. Opinion sup- 
plemented 64 N.E.2d 318, 392 111. 
151. 

Jurisdiction or power to render a 
particular judgment does not mean 
that the judgment rendered must be j 
the one that should have been ren- I 
dered, since the power or jurisdic- J 

50 



tion to decide carries with it the 
power or jurisdiction to decide 
wrong as well as to decide right. 
U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty 
Co., D.C.Okl., 24 F.Supp. 961, modi- 
fied on other grounds, C.C.A., 106 F. 
2d 804, reversed on other grounds 60 
S.Ct 653, 309 U.S. 506, 84 L.Ed. 894. 

41. Cal. Hunter v. Superior Court 
in and for Riverside County, 97 
P.2d 492. 36 Cal.App.2d 100. 

Ky. Lortoh v. Ashbrook, 295 S.W. 
1027, 220 Ky. 830. 

Mo.State ex rel. National Lead Co. 
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061 
Mesendieck Grain Co. v. Folz, 50 
S.W.2d 159, 161, 227 Mo.App. 24. 

N.T. Lynbrook Gardens v. Ullmann, 
36 N.T.S.2d 888, 179 Misc. 132, af- 
firmed 37 N.T.S.2d 671, 265 App. 
Div. 859, reversed on other 

. grounds 53 N.E.2d 353, 291 N.Y. 
472, 152 A.L.R. 959, certiorari de- 
nied 64 S.Ct. 1144, 322 U.S. 742, 
88 L.Ed. 1575. 

Okl. Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.2d 
402, 193 Okl. 320, certiorari denied 
64 S.Ct. 205, 320 U.S. 792, 88 L.Bd. 
477, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 368, 
320 U.S. 815, 88 LJEd. 4*2 Fitz- 
simmons v. Oklahoma City, 135 P. 
2d 340, 343, 192 Okl. 248 Moroney 
v. State ex rel. Southern Surety 
Co., 31 P.2d 926, 168 Okl. 69 State 
v. Armstrong, 13 P.2d 198, 168 
Okl. 290 Blake v. Metz, 276 P. 
762, 136 Okl. 146, followed in 276 
P. 765, 136 Okl. 150 Askew v. Ter- 
rell, 243 P, 495, 113 Okl. 206 Vann 
v. Adklns, 234 P. 644, 169 Okl. 12 
Burris v. Straughn, 232 P. 294, 
107 Okl. 299 Ex parte Dawes, 239 
P. 689, 31 Okl.Cr. 397. 

Tex. San Jacinto Finance Corpora- 
tion v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S.W. 
2d 1213 Reed v. State, Cr., 187 S. 
W.2d 660. 

Wyo. State v. District Court of 
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for 
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 33 
Wyo. 281. 

33 C.J. p 1077 note 72. 

A decision, whether correct or 
wrong, made by a court in excess of 
its jurisdiction and power is void. 
Spencer v. Franks, 195 A. 306, 173 
Md. 73, 114 A.L.R. 263. 

Manner forbidden by law 

A judgment is void when the court 
proceeds without authority and in 
a manner forbidden by law with re- 
spect to matter being adjudicated, 
although it may have jurisdiction of 
parties and subject matter. Wagner 
v. Peoples Building & Loan Ass'n, 
167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691 Jones 
v. Keen, 160 S.W.2d 164, 289 Ky. 779 
Soper v. Foster, 51 S.W.2d 927. 244 
Ky. 658. 



49 C.J.S. 

20. Matured Cause of Action 

It Is essential to the validity and regularity of a 
judgment that the demand whereon it is rendered shall 
have existed as a matured cause of action at the time 
the action was commenced. 

It is essential to the validity and regularity of a 
judgment that the demand whereon it is rendered 
shall have existed as a matured cause of action at 
the time the action was commenced, 42 it being a 
general rule that a party must recover according to 
his legal rights at the commencement of the ac- 



JUDGMENTS 



22 



21. Definitiveness 

A judgment must be definitive* 

A judgment must be definitive. 44 By this is 
meant that the decision itself must purport to de- 
cide finally the rights of the parties on the issue 
submitted, by specifically denying or granting the 



remedy sought by the action. 45 The converse of 
this proposition is also true, and every definitive de- 
termination of the rights of the parties in a pro- 
ceeding before a competent tribunal is a judg- 
ment 46 

22. Reasons for Judgment 

OrdlnarHy the reasons assigned by the court for 
the Judgment rendered do not constitute a part of the 
judgment. 

Although it has been said that every court should 
state on the record the legal grounds for its judg- 
ment, 47 the reasons assigned by the court for the 
judgment rendered do not constitute a part of the 
judgment. 48 Also if the judgment given is correct, 
it is immaterial whether the reasons adduced for 
giving such a judgment are correct. 49 Therefore a 
judgment or decree of the court controls the writ- 
ten opinion, and if they are at variance, the former 
prevails and determines the rights of the parties. 60 



Not a Judgment 

When judgment roll on its face 
shows that court was without juris- 
diction to render the particular judg- 
ment, Its pronouncement Is not In 
fact a judgment. Hodson v. 
O'Keeffe, 229 P. 722, 71 Mont. 322. 
Belief denied "by law 

A Judgment granting relief which 
the law declares shall not be grant- 
ed is void. Moroney v. State ex rel. 
Southern Surety Co., 31 P.2d 926, 168 
Okl. 69 State v. Armstrong, 13 P. 
2d 198, 158 Okl. 290. 
Special statutory powers 

Where court is exercising special 
statutory powers, Judgment in ex- 
cess of statutory authority Is void. 
uEtna Casualty & Surety Co. of 
Hartford, Conn., v. Board of Sup'rs 
of Warren County, 168 S.E, 617, 160 
Va. 11. 
Transcending Jurisdiction, 

Where court, after acquiring Ju- 
risdiction of a subject matter, tran- 
scends the limits of Jurisdiction con- 
ferred, its Judgment Is void. Flake 
v. Pretzel, 46 N.B.2d 375, 381 HI. 
498. 

42. Wash, Mondiolf v. American 
Bldg. Co., 145 P. 577, 83 Wash. 584. 

33 C.J. p 1097 note 9. 

43. N.Y. -Fults v. Munro, 95 N.E. 
23, 202 N.Y. 34, 87 KILA..N.S., 600, 
Ann.Cas.l912D 870. 

33 C.J. p 1097 note 10. 

Death rendering- decree timely 

However, where testatrix devised 
realty in trust for benefit of hus- 
band during his life, the trust to 
terminate at husband's death, and 
husband who elected to take against 
the will died during pendency of de- 
fendants' appeal in husband's parti- 
tion suit, realty was to be distribut- 
ed by trustee as directed by will 



and decree, and order directing sale 
of property and that trustee dis- 
tribute proceeds, if premature when 
entered, was held to be rendered 
timely by husband's death. Flynn 
v. Bryan, Mo., 154 S.W.2d 773. 

44. Cal. Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P. 
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374 Corpus 
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak- 
zoume, 123 P.2d 72, 74, 50 CaLApp. 
2d 229. 

33 C.J. p 1103 note 29. 

45. CaL Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P. 
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374 Corpus 
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak- 
zoume, 123 P.2d 72, 74, 50 CaLApp. 
2d 229. 

N.Y. Lowe v. Lowe, 192 N.E. 291, 

265 N.Y. 197. 
33 C.J. p 1104 note 30. 

Judgment determining nothing 
and leaving parties where they 
started is wholly ineffective. Per- 
mian Oil Co. v. Smith, Civ.App., 47 
S.W.2d 500, reversed on other 
grounds 73 S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413, 
111 AL.R. 1152, rehearing denied 
107 S.W.2d 564, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A. 
L.R. 1175. 

46. Cal. Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P. 
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374 Corpus 
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak- 
zoume, 123 P.2d 72. 74, 50 Cal. 
App.2d 229. 

33 C.J. p 1104 note 31. 

47. N.Y. Newman v. Mayer, 65 N. 
T.S. 294, 52 App.Div. 209, 7 N.Y. 
Ann.Cas. 497. 

Va.- Preston v. Auditor, 1 Call. 471, 

5 Va. 471. 

Construction of Judgments In gen- 
eral see infra 436. 
Constitutional requirement 

(1) Where a constitutional provi- 
sion requires the court to state its 
reasons for the Judgment rendered, 

51 



and this is not done, the Judgment 
must be reversed. Dorr v. Jouet, 20 
La.Ann. 2733 C.J. p 1105 note 48. 
(2) The constitutional mandate 
that Judges shall refer to law and 
adduce reasons on which definitive 
Judgments are founded refers only 
to cases wherein real controversies 
or claims are decided or adjudicated 
and not to rule taken by wife for 
issuance of writ of fieri facias on 
Judgment for amount of past-due 
and exigible alimony payments pre- 
viously ordered by Judgment in her 
suit for separation from bed and 
board. Erdal v. Brdal, La.App., 26 
So.2d 377. 

48. Cal. Corpus Juris cited in 
Martin v. Board of Trustees of 
ILeland Stanford Jr. University, 99 
P.2d 684, 686, 37 Cal.App.2d 481. 

Ga. Bales v. Wright, 200 S.E. 192, 

59 Ga.App. 191. 
Mo. Smith v. Travelers' Protective 

Ass'n of America, 6 S.W.2d 870, 

319 Mo. 1120. 
N.C. Gettys v. Town of Marion, 10 

S.B.2d 799, 218 N.C. 266. 
Okl. McGann v. McGann, 87 P.2d 

939, 169 Okl. 515. 
Tex. Davis v. Hemphlll, ClvJLpp., 

243 S.W. 691. 
33 C.J. p 1104 note 38. 

49. Minn. Kipp v. Clinger, 106 N* 
W. 108, 97 Minn. 135. 

33 C.J. p 1105 note 40. 

50. Iowa. In re Evans' Estate, 291 
N.W. 460, 228 Iowa 908. 

N.Y. People ex rel. Metropolitan 

Trust Co. of City of New York v. 

Travis, 176 N.Y.S. 765, 107 Misc. 

377, affirmed 180 N.Y.S. 659, 191 

App.Dlv. 129, 
Wash. Reagh v. Shalkenbach, 56 P. 

2d 673. 
33 C.J. p 1104 note 39. 



1 23 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



If the judgment is one which the court had power i jurisdiction because it is based or made on an im- 
to make on any ground, it is not void for want of | proper ground. 51 

B. PROCESS, NOTICE, OE APPEARANCE 



23. Necessity 

A valid judgment may be rendered against a defend- 
ant only where he has been given notice; and accord* 
tngly a judgment which is rendered without any notice 
to, or service of process on the defendant, and without 
his voluntarily appearing, is generally void for want of 
Jurisdiction. 

As a general rule, before a valid judgment may be 
rendered against a defendant, he must be accorded 



an opportunity to be heard, as discussed supra 
18, and for this purpose he must be given notice 
of the action or proceeding against him, 52 and this 
notice cannot constitutionally be dispensed with. 53 
Accordingly a judgment which is rendered without 
any form of notice to, or service on, defendant is 
wholly void for want of jurisdiction, 54 unless he 
voluntarily appears, as discussed infra 26, or 



Operation and effect of opinions gen- 
erally see Courts 222 b. 
''Decision" 

In case of a variance between the 
"'Judgment" and the "decision," the 
"'judgment" controls. Wo Kee & Co. 
v. U. S., 28 C.C.P.A.Customs 272 
U. S. v. Penn. Commercial Corpora- 
tion of America, 15 Ct.Cust.App. 206 
Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical 
Co. v. U. S., 13 CtCustApp. 451. 

51. U.S. Converse v. Stewart, C.C. 
3ST.T., 192 F. 941. affirmed 197 F. 
1S2, 118 C.C.A. 212. 

52. U.S. Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C. 
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852 Smith v. 
Stark Trucking, D.C.Ohio, 63 F. 
Supp. 826 Fisher v. Jordan, D.C. 
Tex., 32 F.Supp. 608, reversed on 
other grounds 116 F.2d 183, cer- 
tiorari denied Jordan v. Fisher, 61 
S.Ct. 734, 812 U.S. 697, 85 L.Ed. 
1132. 

Cal. Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203 
Cal. 306. 

Ga. Elliott v. Adams, 160 S.E. 336, 
173 Ga. 312. 

N.Y. Rochester Sav. Bank v. Mon- 
roe County, S N.Y.S.2d 107, 169 
Misc. 526 Cipperly v. Link, 237 
N.Y.S. 106, 135 Misc. 134. 

N.D. Corpus Juris quoted In Baird 
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70 

* N.D. 261. 

Okl. St. Louis-San Francisco By. 
Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl 
542. 

Pa. In re Galli's Estate, 17 A.2d 
893, 340 Pa. 561 In re Komara's 
Estate, 166 A. 677, 311 Pa. 135. 

Va. Moore v. Smith, 15 S.E.2d 48,' 
177 Va. 621. 

Wash. Morley v. Morley, 230 P. 645, 
131 Wash. 540. 

33 C.J. p 1080 BOte 96. 

53. Gal. Baker v. O'Riordan, 4 P. 
232, 65 Cal. 368. 

Minn. Bardwell v. Collins, 46 N.W. 
315, 44 Minn. 97, 20 Am.S.R. 547, 
9 L.R.A. 152. 

33 C.J. p 1079 note 93. 

Process or notice as essential ele- 
ment of due process of law see 
Constitutional Law 5 619. 
Begardless of statutory provision 

with respect to issuance and service 



of process, no judgment, order, or 
.decree is valid or binding on the 
party who has no notice of pro- 
ceeding against him, since court 
must have jurisdiction of tlie person 
as well as of the subject matter and 
legislature is without power under 
constitution to dispense with notice 
either actual or constructive. Mad- 
do* v. Bush, 4 So.2d 302, 191 Miss. 
748 Jack v. Thompson, 41 Miss. 49'. 
54. U.S. Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor- 
poration v. Warfield Natural Gas 
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, car-, 
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U. 
S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing de- 
nied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803, 88 
L.EdL 1089 Mason v. Royal In- 
demnity Co., D.CGa., 35 F.Supp. 
477, affirmed, C.C.A., 123 F.2d 335. 
Ala. Standard Cooperage Co. v. 
Grant, 117 So. 31, 217 Ala. 667 
Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v. 
Burnett Bros., 116 So. 810, 22 Ala. 
App. 524, certlorari denied 118 
So. 286, 218 Ala. 165. 
Ariz. Lore v. Citizens Bank of Win- 
slow, 75 R2d 371, 51 Ariz. 191. 
Cal. Balaam v. Perazzo, 295 P. 330, 
221 Cal. 375 Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 
246, 203 Cal. 306 In re Ivory's 
Estate, 98 P.2d 761, 37 Oal.App.2d 
22 Jones v. Noble, 39 P.2d 486, 8 
Cal.App.2d 316. 
D.C. Wise v. Herzog. 114 F.2d 486, 

72 APP.D.C. 335. 

Gtau TOnn v. Armour & Co., 193 S. 
R 447, 184 Ga. 769 Henry & Co. 
v. Johnson, 173 S.E. 659, 178 Ga. 
641 Williams v. Batten, 119 S.E. 
709, 156 Ga. 620 Cherry v. Mo- 
Cutchen, 23 S.E.2d 587, 68 Ga. 
App. 682. 
Hawaii. Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi- 

yama, 33 Hawaii 545. 
111. Schuster v. Eisner, 250 IlLApp. 

192. 

Ind. Montgomery v. Marks, 46 N.E. 
2d 912, 221 Ind. 223Celiha Mut 
Casualty Co. v. Bpldridge, 12 N.E. 
2d 258, 213 Ind. 198. 
Iowa. Woodmen Accident Co. v. 
District Court in and for Marshall 
County, 260 N.TIf. 713, 219 Iowa 
1326, 9 A.L.R. 1431 Bes Mofaes 
Coal & Coke Co. v. Marks Inv. Co., 
195 N.W. 597, 197 Iowa 589, opin- , 

52 



ion modified on rehearing 197 N. 
W. 628, 187 Iowa 589. 

Ky. Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d 821 
Parrish v. Ferriell, 186 S.W.2d 
625, 299 Ky. 676 Jones v. Fuller, 
134 S.W.Sd 240, 280 Ky. 671 
Gardner v. Lincoln Bank & Trust 
Co., 64 S.W.2d 497, 251 Ky. 109 
Ely v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co., 49 
S.W.2d 1021, 243 Ky. 725 Rex 
Red Ash Coal Co. v. Powers, 290 
S.W. 1061, 218 Ky. 93 Farmers' 
Bank of Salvisa v. Riley, 272 S.W. 
9, 209 Ky. 54. 

La. In re Webster's Tutorship, 177 
So. 688, 188 La. 623 Lacour Plan- 
tation Co, v. Jewell, 173 So. 761, 
186 La. 1055 Logwood v. Log- 
wood, 168 So. 310, 185 La. 1 No- 

. Ian v. Schultze, 126 So. 513, 169 
La. 1022 Gahn v. Brown, 107 So. 
576, 160 La. 790 Nicol v. Jacoby, 
103 So. 33, 157 La. 757 Smith v. 
Crescent Chevrolet Co., App., 1 So. 
2d 421 Key v. Jones, App., 181 So. 
631 R. P. Ffcrnsworth & Co. v. 
Estrade, Cotton & Fricke, App., 
166 So. 676 McClelland v. District 
Household of Ruth, App., 151 So. 
246 Richardson v. Trustees' Loan 
& Guaranty Co., 132 So. 387, 15 La. 
App. 645 Spillman v. Texas &*P. 
Ry. Co., 120 So. 905, 10 LfcuApp. 
379. 

Md. Piedmont-Mt Airy Guano Co. 

of Baltimore y. Merritt, 140 A. 62, 

154 Md. 226. 
Mich. Hafner T. A. J. Stuart Land 

Co., 224 N.W. 630, 246 Mich. 465. 
Minn. Beede v. Nldes Finance Cor- 
poration, 296 N.W. 413, 209 Minn. 

354.' 
Miss. Eastman Gardiner Lumber 

Co. v. Carr, 166 So. 401, 175 Miss. 

36 Bank of Richton v. Jones, 121 

So. 823, 153 Miss. 796. 
Mo. State eat rel. Keller r. Porter- 
field, App., 283 S.W. 59. 
Mont Novack v. Pericich, 300 P. 

240, 90 Mont 91-r-Holt v. Sather, 

264 P. 108, 81 Mont 442. 
K.M. Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail 

Stages, 95 P.2d 284, 43 N.M. 453. 
N.Y. Friedman v. Blatt, 27 N.Y.S.2d 

102, 176*Misc. 401 Rochester Sav. 

Bank v. Monroe County, 8 N.T.S. 

2d 107, 169 Misc. 526 Baumaa 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



23 



otherwise waives service of process, 55 or authorizes 
its acceptance; 56 and in some states this rule ob- 
tains by statutory provision. 57 However, the prin- 
ciple that a judgment obtained without service of 
process or voluntary appearance is void for lack of 
the court's jurisdiction does not apply to a deci- 
sion on a collateral question, in a case where the 
parties are before the court ; 58 and a failure to give 
notice" to a party who has no concern or interest in 
the question decided does not affect the validity of 
the judgment. 59 A judgment which merely deter- 



mines rights may be conclusive without the service 
of any process for its enforcement. 60 

After amended, supplefnental, or cross pleading. 
A judgment is void where it is rendered without the 
service of process, waiver, or entry of appearance, 
on an amended complaint or petition, which changes 
the cause of action, 61 or on an amended or supple- 
mental pleading filed by defendant, 62 or on a plea 
of intervention. 63 Likewise, where a new or ad- 
ditional process is required when a cross pleading 
is filed, a judgment rendered on such pleading 



Rubber Co. v. Karl Light & Sons, 
244 N.T.S. 448, 137 Misc. 258. 

N.C. Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.E.2d 
26, 224 N.C. 67 City of Monroe 
v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C. 
362 Hood v. Holding, 171 S.E. 
633. 205 N.C. 451 Crocker v. 
Van-n, 135 S.E. 127, 192 N.C. 422 
Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128 S. 
E. 20, 189 N.C. 703. 

N.D. Corpus Juris quoted in. Baird 
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70 
N.D. 261 Gallagher v. National 
Nonpartisan League, 205 N.W. 674, 
53 N.D. 238. 

Okl. American Exchange Corpora- 
tion v. Lowry, 63 P.2d 71, 178 Okl. 
433 St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. 
Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl. 
542 Chicago, R. L & P. Ry. Co. 
v. Excise Board of Oklahoma 
County, 33 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428 
Protest of Chicago. R. I. & P. 
Ry. Co., 2 P.2d 935, 151 Okl. 129 
Noel v. Edwards, 260 P. 58, 127 
Okl. 163 Oklahoma City v. Me- 
Williams, 236 P. 417, 108 Okl. 268 
Abraham v. Homer, 226 P. 45, 
102 Okl. 12. 

Pa. In re Honiara's Estate, 166 A. 
577, 311 Pa, 135 In re Gallagher's 
Estate, 167 A. 476, 109 Pa. Super. 
304. 

R.I. Corpus Juris cited in Sahagian 
v. Sahagian, 137 A. 221, 222, 48 
R.L 267. 

Tex. Pure Oil Co. v. Reece, 78 S. 
W.2d 932, 124 Tex. 476 State 
Mortg. Corporation v. Tray lor, 36 
S.W.2d 440. 120 Tex 148 Levy v. 
Roper, 256 S.W. 251, 113 Tex. 356 
Burrage v. Hunt, Civ.App., 147 
S.W.2d 532, error dismissed, judg- 
ment correct Freeman v. B. F. 
Goodrich Rubber Co., Civ.App., 127 
S.W.2d 476, error dismissed by 
agreement Olton State Bank v. 
Howell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 287 
Goodman v. Mayer, Civ.App., 
105 S.W.2d 281, reversed on other 
grounds 128 S.W.2d 1156, 133 Tex. 
319 Coker v. Logan, Civ.App., 101 
S.W.2d 284 Corpus Juris cited in 
Associated Indemnity Corporation 
v. Baker, Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 153, 
158 Wilkinson v. Owens, Civ. 
App.,' 72 S.W.2d 330 Christie v. 
Hudspeth County Conservation 
and Reclamation Dist. No. 1, Civ. 



App., 64 S.W.2d 978 Texas Bank 
& Trust Co. v. Bankers' Life Co., 
Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 631, error re- 
fused Lipscomb v. Japhet, Civ. 
App., 18 S.W.2d 786 Belt v. Mc- 
Gehee, Civ.App., 9 S.W.Sd 407 
Adamson v. Collins, Civ.App., 286 
S.W. 598 Cook v. Liberty Pipe 
Line Co., Civ.App., 281 S.W. 221 
Watson Co., Builders, v. Blee- 
ker, Civ.App., 269 S.W. 147. 
Utah. Parry v. Bonneville Irr. 

Dist., 235 P. 751, 71 Utah 202. 
Va. Preston v. Legard, 168 S.E. 445, 
160 Va. 364 Johnson v. Burson, 
129 S.E. 251, 143 Va. 57. 
Wash. State v. Fishing Appliances, 

16 P.2d 822, 170 Wash. 426. 
W.Va. Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans- 
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va. 
395 Robertson Grocery Co. v. 
Kinser, 116 S.E. 141, 93 W.Va. 172. 
33 C.J. p 1079 note 9434 C.J. p 533 
notes 38, 3915 C.J. p 798 note 64. 
Default Judgment without process 

see infra 191. 
Judgment by confession without 

process see infra 151. 
Service of process as essential to 

Jurisdiction see Courts 83. 
Service of process on Joint defend- 
ants see infra $ 33. 
As otherwise stated, unless a de- 
fendant has been brought into court 
in some way sanctioned by law, or 
has made a voluntary appearance 
in person or by attorney, a Judgment 
rendered against him is void for 
want of Jurisdiction. Casey v. Bar- 
ker, 14 S.E.2* 429, 219 N.C. 465 
Groce v. Groce, 199 S.E. 388, 214 
N.C. 398 Denton v. Vassiliades, 193 
S.E. 737, 212 N.C. 513 Downing v. 
White, 188 S.E. 815, 211 N.C. 40. 

For judicial action to affect vested 
rights, it must be based on notice or 
process whereby interested parties 
are brought within court's Jurisdic- 
tion. Parry v. Bonneville Irr. Dist., 
263 P. 751, 71 Utah 202. 
55. Ga. Henry & Co. v. Johnson, 

173 S.E. 659, 178 Ga. 541. 
Hawaii. Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi- 

yama, 33 Hawaii 545. 
La. Key v. Jones, App., 181 So. 631. 
Okl. Protest of Chicago, R. I. & 
P. Ry. Co., 2 P.2d 935, 151 Okl. 
129. 

53, 



W.Va, Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans- 
fer Co., 158 S.E. 606, 110 W.Va. 
395 Robertson Grocery Co. v. 
Kinser, 116 S.E. 141, 93 W.Va. 172. 

34 C.J. p 5*33 note 40. 

56. W.Va. Hayhurst v. J. Kenny 
Transfer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W. 
Va. 395. 

57. Ark. Arkansas State Highway 
Commission v. Hammock, 148 S. 
W.2d 324, 201 Ark. 927. 

58- Cal. Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 
20$ Cal. 306. 

59. Ohio. Cunningham v. Bessemer 
Trust Co., 178 N.E. 217, 39 Ohio 
App. 535. 

60. N.H. Faulkner v. City of 
Keene, 155 A. 195. 85 N.H. 147 
Walker v. Walker, 63 N.H. 321, 
56 Am.R. 514. 

Declaratory Judgments generally see 
Actions 18 d (14) (g). 

61. Ohio. Ohio Electric Ry. Co. v. 
U. S. Express Co., 137 N.E. 1, 105 
Ohio St. 331. 

Tex. Nuckles v. J. M. Radford Gro- 
cery Co., Civ.App... 72 S.W.2d 652. 
Rule not applicable where amend- 
ed pleading states no new cause of 
action. 
Okl. City of Tulsa v. Peacock, 74 P. 

2d 359, 181 Okl. 383. 
Tex. Nathan v. Brashear, Civ.App., 
105 S.W.2d 328 Henson v. C. C. 
Slaughter Co., Civ.App., 206 S.W. 
375. 
33 C.J. p 1081 note 97 [d]. 

62. Tex Davis v. Wichita State 
Bank & Trust Co., Civ.App., 286 
S.W. 584. 

Flea for affirmative relief 

Where defendant files pleading 
asking for affirmative relief after 
plaintiff has taken nonsuit, citation 
is necessary to sustain Judgment 
for him. Davis v. Wichita State 
Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 286 
S.W. 584. 
judgment improper 

Entry of Judgment after overrul- 
ing plea of privilege, without notice 
or hearing of controverting plea, Is 
improper. Galbraith v. Bishop, Tex 
Com.App., 287 S.W. 1087. 

63. Tex. State v. Bagby's Estate, 
_Civ.App., ,126 S.W.2d 687. 



24 



against the original plaintiff, 64 or a codefendant, 65 
without the service of process on, or appearance or 
waiver by, such plaintiff or defendant, is void, as 
where the cross petition is filed after the expiration 
of the time for such defendant to plead. 66 

24. Sufficiency 

a. In general 

b. Personal service 

c. Substituted and constructive service; 

publication 

d. Extraterritorial service 

e. Nonresidents 

f . Attachment and garnishment 



g. Defective process 
h. Defective service 

a. In General 

Formal process or notice served In the manner au- 
thorized or required by law is essential to support a 
judgment. 

Formal process or notice served in the manner 
authorized or required by law is essential to sup- 
port a judgment; 67 mere informal knowledge of 
the pendency of the action is not sufficient 68 Thus 
a judgment is a mere nullity where service is made 
on a third person, who is not authorized to accept 
service, instead of on the actual defendant, 69 not- 



Wbere intervention was filed after 
service of citation had been had on 
defendants and intervener did not 
cause citation to issue on Its cause 
of action and defendants made no 
appearance, trial court was without 
Jurisdiction to enter judgment for 
intervener against defendants. 
State v. Bagby's Estate, Tex. Civ. 
App., 126 S.W.2d 687. 

64. Tex. Early v. Cornelius, 39 S. 
W.2d 6, 120 Tex, 335 Holmes v. 
Klein, Civ.App. f 59 S.W.2d 171 
National Stock Tards Nat Bank 
v. Valentine, Civ. App., 39 S.W.2d 
907 Southern Equipment Co. v. 
Hallman Electric Co., Civ. App., 10 
S.W.2d 261 Scarborough v. Brad- 
ley, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 349 Jar- 
ratt v. McCarty, Civ.App,, 209 S. 
W. 712. 

Necessity of process after filing 
cross pleading see the C.J.S. title 
Process 4, also 50 C.J. p 448 
note 48-p 449 note 60. 

65. CaL Balaam v. Perazzo, 295 P, 
330, 221 CaL 375. 

Ky. Carter v. Capshaw, 60 S.W.2d 
959, 249 Ky. 483 Lorton v. Ash- 
brook, 295 S.W. 1027, 220 Ky. 830. 

Tex. Holmes v. Klein, Civ. App., 59 
S.W.2d 171, error dismissed Flagg 
v. Matthews, Civ.App., 287 S.W. 
299. 

Effect of appearance generally see 
infra 26. 

66. Okl. Blakeney v. Ashford, 81 
P.2d 309, 188 Okl. 213 Vinson v. 
Oklahoma City, 66 P.2d 933, 179 
Okl. 590-^Central Nat. Bank of 
Okmulgee v. Sharp, 34 P.2d 241, 
168 Okl. 616 O'Reilly v. Schuer- 
meyer, 9 P,2d 923, 156 Okl. 167 
Wood v. Speakman, 5 P.2d. 121, 153 
Okl. 180 Poster v. Comaway, 251 
P. 59, 122 Okl. 80. 

67. U.S. Rettig Beverage Co. v, IT. 
S.. C.C.A.Pa., 13 F.2d 740. 

Ala. Sovereign .Camp, W. O. W., v. 

Partridge, 127 So. 505, 221 Ala. 

75. 
Ark. Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W. 

2d 178, 193 Ark. 473. , 



Colo. Younge v. Button, 61 P.2d 

1370, 99 Colo. 254. 
Fla. McAllister v. McAllister, 3 So. 

2d 351. 147 Fla, 647. 
Ky. Corpus Taxis cited in Ely v. 

XI. S. Coal & Coke Co., 49 S.W.2d 

1021, 1025, 243 Ky. 725. 
Mo. In re Waters' Estate, App., 

153 S.W.2d 774. 
Neb. Coffin v. Maitland, 20 N.W.2d 

310. 
N.J. Hinners v. Banville, 168 A. 

618, 114 N.J.Eq. 348. 
N.T. Universal Credit Co. v. Blind- 

erman, 288 N.T.S. 77, 159 Misc. 

802. 
N.D. Corpus Juris quoted in Balrd 

v. Ellison, 293 N.W, 794, 801, 70 

N.D. 261. 
Okl. State v. City of Tulsa, 5 P.2d 

744, 153 Okl. 262 Oklahoma City 

v. McWilliams, 236 P. 417, 108 Okl. 

268. 
Pa. In re Murray's Estate, Super., 

45 A.2d 411 Johnston v. Ameri- 
can Casualty Co., Com.Pl., 23 

WestCo. 178. 
Tenn. Hunter v. May, 25 S.W.2d 

580, 161 Tenn. 155. 
Tex. Jenness v. First Nat. Bank, 

Civ.App., 256 S.W. 634. 
33 C.J. p 1081 note 97. 
Service of process in general see 

the C.J.S. title Process 25 et sea, 

also 50 C.J. p 467 note 86 et sea. 

Formal issuance of order to show 
cause and appropriate service there- 
of on defendant was such reasona- 
ble notice of pendency of suit as to 
bring it within Jurisdiction of court 
and bind defendant to order or de- 
cree. Doan v. OollinB-Doan Co., 194 
A. 254, 122 N.J.Eq. 399. 

'Corporation, and stockholders 

Where court had jurisdiction over 
subject matter of suit against cor- 
poration, and president of corpo- 
ration was served with citation, 
stockholders were not "necessary 
parties" or "proper parties" to suit, 
and hence notice of suit and serv- 
ice on them was not reauired for 
rendition of valid judgment against 
corporation and stockholders. Cruse 

54 



v. Mann, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 
545, error dismissed. 

68. Cal. Peabody v. Phelps, 9 CaL 
213. 

N.D. Corpus Jxtcis quoted la Baird 
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70 
N.D. 261. 

Ohio. Haley v. Hanna, 112 N.E, 149, 
93 Ohio St. 49. 

33 C.J. p 1081 note 97. 

69. Ky. Missouri-Kansas Pipe 
Line Co. v. Hobgood, 51 S.W.2d 
920, 244 Ky, 570. 

La. Waddill v. Payne, 23 La,Ann. 
773 Jones v. Jones, 23 La.Ann. 
304. 

N.T. Building Trades Service Bu- 
reau v. S. W. Straus Investing 
Corporation, 272 N.T.S. 73, 241 
App.Div. 869 Universal Credit 
Co. v. Blinderman, 288 N.T.S. 77, 
159 Misc. 802. 

Wash. Wheeler v. Moore, 36 P. 
1053, 10 Wash. 309. 

W.Va, State v. A, R. Kelly & Co.* 
33 S.E.2d 230 Nicholas Land Co. 
v. Crowder, 32 S.E.2d 563. 

33 C.J. p 1081 note 98. 

Class representative 

(1) Conditions under which de- 
fendants may be bound by judg- 
ments in "class suits," and in other 
cases in which doctrine of virtual 
representation is applied, constitute 
exceptions to statutory provisions 
making service of process a condi- 
tion precedent to rendition of judg- 
ment. Southern Ornamental Iron. 
Works v. Morrow, Tcx.Civ.App., 101 
S.W.2d 336. 

(2) However, the equitable doc- 
trine of class representation does 
not permit a plaintiff to designate- 
certain parties as representatives 
of other numerous members of & 
voluntary unincorporated association 
in order to obtain personal judg- 
ments as to members not properly- 
served in action on alleged indebted- 
ness of the association. Webb & 
Martin v. Anderson-McG-rift Hard- 
ware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 188 Ga, 291. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



24 



withstanding defendant had knowledge of the ac- 
tion and the attempted service. 70 The service 
must be accomplished by a method which gives de- 
fendant actual or constructive notice, 71 and is rea- 
sonably calculated to afford him the constitutional 
protection of due process of law. 72 It must apprise 
defendant of what is required of him and of the 
consequences which may follow if he neglects to de- 
fend the action. 78 

b. Personal Service 
A personal Judgment which Is rendered without serv- 



ice of process on, or legal notice to, defendant Is void In 
the absence of a voluntary appearance or waiver. 

A personal judgment rendered against a defend- 
ant without service of process on him, or other suf- 
ficient legal notice to him, is without jurisdiction 
and void, 74 unless he has appeared voluntarily, as 
discussed infra 26, or otherwise has waived per- 
sonal service, 75 or has acknowledged service, 76 or 
has authorized its acceptance in his behalf. 77 In a 
proceeding in rem, or quasi in rem, a valid per- 
sonal judgment cannot be rendered against de- 
fendant without personal service of process on him, 
in the absence of his voluntary appearance. 78 



70. Ariz. National Metal Co. v. 
Greene Consol. Copper Co., 89 P. 
535, 11 Ariz. 108. 

33 C.J. p 1081 note 98. 

71. N.Y. In re Renard's Estate, 39 
N.Y.S.2d 968, 179 Misc. 885. 

Pa. In re Komara's Estate, 166 A. 

577, 811 Pa. 135. 
Constructive service generally see 

infra subdivision c of this section. 

72. D.C. Wise v. Herzog, 114 F.2d 
486, 72 App.D.C. 335. 

N.Y. -Standish v. Standish, 40 N.Y. 
S.2d 538, 179 Misc. 564. 

73. Cal. Peabody v. Phelps, 9 Cal 
213. 

33 C.J. p 1081 note 1. 

Process and service sufficient to 
support default Judgment see in- 
fra 191. 

74. U.-S. Griffin v. Griffin, App.D.C., 
66 S.Ct. 556, rehearing denied 66 8. 
Ct 975 In re Gayle, C.C.A.Canal 
Zone, 136 F.2d 973, petition dis- 
missed 64 S.Ct 157, 320 U.S. 806, 
88 L.Ed. 487. 

.Ala. Morrison v. Covington, 100 So. 

124. 211 Ala. 181 Corpus Juris 

cited in Ex parte Whistler, 199 So. 

876, 878, 29 Ala.App. 583. 
Ariz. Blair v. Blair, 62 P.2d 1321, 

48 Ariz. 501. 
Jowa, Stier v. Iowa State Traveling 

Men's Ass'n, 201 N.W. 328, 199 

Iowa 118, 59 A.L.R. 1384. 
;Kan. Gibson v. Enright, 9 P.2d 971, 

135 Kan. 181. 
ZKy. Hughes v. Hughes, 278 S.W. 

121, 211 Ky. 799. 
Mo. Noell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 

74 S.W.2d 7, 335 Mo. 687, 94 A.L.R. 

684, followed in 74 S.W.2d 14. 
:Mont. Holt v. Sather, 264 P. 108, 81 

Mont 442. 
;N.J. Baker v. Josephsota, 44 A.2d 

909, 137 N.J.Eq. 377, reversed on 

other grounds 46 A.2d 904, 138 N. 

J.BQ. 107. 
:.N.M. State ex rel. Truitt v. District 

Court of Ninth Judicial Dist, Cur- 
ry County, 96 P.2d 710. 44 N.M, 

16, 126 A.L.R. 651. 
~N.Y. In re Galvin's Estate, 274 N 

Y.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11. 
:N.C. Dunn v. Wilson, 187 &E, 802 

210 N.C. 493. 



sr.D. Corpus Juris cited in Ellison 
v. Baird, 293 N.W. 793, 794, 70 N. 
D. 226 Corpus Juris cited in Dar- 
ling & Co. v. Burchard, 284 N.W. 
856, 862, 69 N.D. 212. 

Ohio. In re Blue's Estate, 32 N.R2d 
499, 67 Ohio App. 37. 

Okl. Skipper v. Baer, 277 P. 930, 
136 Okl. 286. 

Pa. Potter v. Potter, Pa., 42 Dist 
& Co. 42. 

Tenn. Dickson v. Simpson, 113 S. 
W.2d 1190, 172 Tenn, 680, 116 A.L. 
R. 380. 

Va, Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S*E. 
606, 151 Va, 143. 

W.Va. Hayhurst v. X Kenny Trans- 
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va, 
395. 

Wis. Saric v. Brlos, 19 N.W.2d 903, 
247 Wis. 400. 

33 C.J. p 1082 note 4 34 C.J. p 533 
note 39. 

Service within state see infra subdi- 
vision d of this section. 

What constitutes personal service 
see the C.J.S. title Process 25- 
42, also 50 C.J. p 468 <note 9-p 490 
note 62. 

"Jurisdiction, of the person" is ob- 
tained, so that a valid judgment may 
be rendered, when prescribed notice 
has been given to litigant proceed- 
ed against to enable him to appear 
and make defense. Wagner v. Peo- 
ples Building & Loan Ass'n, 167 S. 
W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691. 

It is not within the power of any 
tribunal to make a binding adjudica- 
tion of the rights in personam of 
parties not brought before it by due 
process of law. National Licorice 
Co. v. National Labor Relations 
Board, 60 S.Ct 569, 309 U.S. 350, 
84 L.Ed. 799. 

Actions affecting title to property 
within court's jurisdiction, but not 
seized or otherwise brought under 
court's direct control for disposi- 
tion, and involved only incidentally 
because of effect on its title of de- 
cree or judgment entered, are usual- 
ly held to be in personam, so as to 
require personal service of process 
on defendants. State ex rel. Truitt 
v. District Court of Ninth Judicial 

' 



Dist, Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44 

. 16, 126 A.L.R. 651. 
Personal judgment on cross petition 

held void 
Ky. Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d 717, 

226 Ky. 689. 

75. N.T. In re Galvin's Estate, 274 
N.Y.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11. . 

W.Va. Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans- 
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va. 
395. 

76. N.J. Fidelity Union Trust Co. 
v. Union Cemetery Ass'-n, 40 A.2d 
205, 136 N.J.Eq. 15, affirmed 45 
A.2d 670, 137 N.J.Ea. 455, and 45 
A.2d 698, 137 N.J.EQ. 456. 
Acknowledgment of service after 

appearance term has been held too 
late to preserve suit as pending ac- 
tion, and judgment rendered in suc- 
ceeding term without other process 
was void. Bolton v. Keys, 144 S.B. 
406, 38 Ga.App. 573. 

77. W.Va. Hayhurst v. J. Kenny 
Transfer Co., 158 S.E. 506. 110 W. 
Va. 395. 

78. Ga, Corpus Juris quoted la 
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc- 
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 
885, 188 Ga, 291. 

111. Barnett v. Cook County, 26 
N.E.2d 862, 373 111. 516 Griffin v. 
Cook County, 16 N.E.2d 906, 369 
111. 380, 118 A.L.R. 1157. 

Kan. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. 
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 78 P. 
2d 72! 146 Kan. 550. 

Ky. Kitchen v. New York Trust 
Co., 168 S.W.2d 5, 292 Ky. 706 
Bond v. Wheeler, 247 S.W. 708, 197 
Ky. 437. 

N.M. State ex rel. Truitt v. Dis- 
trict Court of Ninth Judicial Dist, 
Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44 N.M. 
16, 126 A.L.R. 651. 

N.T. In re Galvin's Estate, 274 N. 
T.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11. 

Tenn. Commerce Union Bank v. 
Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn. 
App. 451. 

33 C.J. p 1084 note 15. 

Extent of jurisdiction of court In 
absence . of personal service of 
process see Courts 83 b (1). 

Judgment in rem see infra I 908; 



24 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.& 



Substituted and Constructive Service; Pub- 
lication 



Ordinarily no valid personal Judgment may be ren- 
dered against a defendant on whom the service of proc- 
ess was merely constructive or by publication and who 
did not appear. 

It has been held that a state has the right to pre- 
scribe the mode of serving the process of its own 
courts on its own resident citizens, and that a judg- 
ment is valid, at least until set aside in a direct 
proceeding for that purpose, when based on such 
a form of citation as the law authorizes, although 
without actual notice to defendant 79 However, a 
personal judgment on merely constructive service is 
not entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of 
another state, under the constitutional provision in 
that regard, 80 and the weight of authority is to the 
effect that no valid personal judgment may be ren- 



79. U.S. Santiago v. Nogueras, 
Puerto Rico, 29 S.Ct 608, 214 TJ.S. 
260, 58 L.Ed. 989. 

Ga. Benton v. Maddox, 192 S.E. 316, 
56 Ga.App. 132. 

HI. Barnett v. Cook County, 26 N.E. 
2d 862, 373 III. 516 Griffln v. Cook 
County, 16 N.E.2d 906, 869 111. 380, 
118 A.L.R. 1167. 

Ind. Pattison v. Grant Trust & Sav- 
ings Co., 144 N.B. 26, 195 Ind. 313. 

Me. Jordan v. McKay, 165 A. 902, 
132 Me. 55. 

Minn. Murray v. Murray, 198 N.W. 
307, 159 Minn. 111. 

Mont. Holt v. gather, 264 P. 108, 
81 Mont. 442. 

N.Y. Continental Nat. Bank of Bos- 
ton v. Thurber. 26 N.Y.S. 956, 74 
Hun 632, affirmed Continental Nat 
Bank of Boston v. United States 
Book Co., 37 N.E. 828, 143 N.Y. 
648 In re Auto Mut. Indemnity 
Co., 14 N.Y.S.2d 601. 

33 C.J. p 1083 note 9. 

Substituted service see the C.J.S. 
title Process 43-53, also 50 C. 
J. p 490 note 64-p 496 note 99. 

Judgment rendered on substituted 
or constructive service is as con- 
clusive on residents of state not 
residents of county of suit as one 
rendered on personal service. Wer- 
ner v. W. H. Shons Co., 173 N.E. 486, 
341 HI. 478* 

Compliance with statute 

Where jurisdiction is obtained by 
a prescribed form of constructive 
notice, the statutory conditions on 
which the service depends must be 
strictly construed, and unless stat- 
ute has been complied with court 
has no jurisdiction to render judg- 
ment Pinon v. Pollard, 158 P.2d 
254. 69 Oal.App.2d 129. 

Service held insufficient to support 

judgment 

(1) On tenant of apartment house 
. by leaving copy of papers in outer 



hall.-<!lover v. Urban, 142 A. 389, 
108 Conn. 13. 

(2) Leaving- process at apartment 
from which defendant had previous- 
ly moved to another state. Rogan 
v. Liberty Mut Ins. Co., 25 N.E.2d 
188, 305 Mass. 186. 

80. Ga. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc- 
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 
885, 188 Ga, 291. 

33 C.J. p 1083 note 10. 

81. U.'S. Pennoyer v. Neff, Or., 95 
U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 Barter v. 
Continental Casualty Co., C.C.A. 
Mo., 48 F.2d 467, appeal dismissed 
52 S.Ct. 2. 284 U.S. 578, 76 L.Ed, 
502. 

Cal. Williams v. Williams, 213 P. 
508, 60 Cal.App. 675. 

Ga. Corpus Juris quoted in Webb & 
Martin v. Anderson-McGrin? Hard- 
ware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 885, 188 Ga. 
291 B. Miflin Hood Brick Co. v. 
Mangham, 131 S.E. 172, 161 Ga. 
457 Sweet v. Awtry, 30 S.B.2d 
799, 71 Ga.App. 341. 

Iowa. Security Sav. Bank v. Cimp- 
rich, 203 N.W. 24, 199 Iowa 1061. 

Ky. Bond v. Wheeler, 247 S.W. 708, 
197 Ky. 437. 

La. Liles v. Barnhart, 93 So. 490, 
152 La. 419. 

Md. Ortman v. Coane, 31 A.2d 320, 
181 Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388. 

N.J. Reichert v. United Brother- 
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of 
America, 183 A. 728, 14 N.J.Misc. 
106. 

N.M.-7-State ex rel. Truitt v. Dis- 
trict Court of Ntoth Judicial Dist., 
Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44 
N.M. 16, 126 A.L.R. 651. 

N.Y. Matthews v. Matthews, 219 N. 
Y.S. 333, 128 Misc. 309. 

Utah. Ricks v. Wade,. 93 P.2d 479, 
97 Utah 402. 

Wyo. Kimbel v. Osborn, 156 (P.2d 
279. 

33 C.J. p 1083 note 11. 

56 



dered against a defendant on whom the service of 
process was merely constructive and who did not 
appear. 81 

d. Extraterritorial Service 

Service of process on a nonresident beyond the ter- 
ritorial Jurisdiction of the court from which the process 
issued will not support a personal Judgment against the 
nonresident. It has also been held that extraterritorial 
service on a resident will not support a personal Judg- 
ment against him. 

It is a fundamental principle that a judgment af- 
fecting personal rights must be founded on service 
of process, within the territorial jurisdiction of the 
court on the party to be affected. 82 Accordingly, a 
valid personal judgment cannot be rendered against 
a nonresident based on process served on him be- 
yond the limits of the state from whose courts the 
process issued, 83 and such a judgment cannot be 

As to nonresidents see infra subdi- 
vision e of this section. 
Under a statute providing- for 
service by publication on nonresi- 
dents only, a Judgment on such serv- 
ice against a resident is void. Main 
v. Kick, 161 N.W. 711, 180 Iowa 50 
Oziah v. Howard, 128 N.W. 864, 140 
Iowa 199. 

82. U.'S. Sugg v. Hendrix, C.CLA. 
Miss., 142 F.2d 740 De Bouchel v. 
Candler, D.C.Ga., 296 F. 482, 485. 

Ariz. Blair v, Blair, 62 P.2d 1321, 

48 Ariz. 501. 
Ky. Kitchen v. New York Trust 

Co., 1C8 S.W.2d 5. 202 Ky. 706. 
Mo. Noell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 

74 S.W.2d 7, 335 Mo. 687, 94 A.L.R. 

684, followed in 74 S.W.2d 14. 

83. TJ.-S. Oxley v. Sweetland, CCA* 
W.Va., 96 P.2d 53 Campbell V. 
City of Hickman, D.C.Ky., 45 V. 
Supp. 517. 

Ark. Miller v. Maryland Casualty 
Co., 180 S.W.2d 581, 207 Ark. 812. 

Del. Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon, 
196 A. 158, 9 W.W.Harr. 22. 

Fla. Newton v. Bryan, 194 So. 282, 
142 Fla. 14. 

111. Wickiser v. Powers, 57 N.E.2d 
522, 324 IlLApp. 130. 

Iowa. 'Sloan-Pierce Lumber Co. v. 
Gardiner, 8 N.W.2d 531, 281 Iowa 
1194 Fisher & Van Gilder v. First 
Trust Joint-Stock Land Bank of 
Chicago, 231 N.W. 671. 210 Iowa 
531, 69 A.L.R. 1340. 

La. Evans v. Evans, 116 So. 831. 
166 La. 145. 

Md. Ortman v. Coane, $1 A.2d 320,. 
181- Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388. 

N.Y. Bank of New Tork v. Leg- 
get, 46 N.Y.S.2d 465, 267 App. 
E>iv. 875, appeal denied 50 N.E.2* 
173, 268 App.Div. 779, appeal dis- 
missed 56 N.B.2d 115, 29* N.Y. 
702, appeal dismissed 57 N.&2& 
838, 293 N.Y. 759 Maguire v.. 
Blodgett, 41 N.Y.S.2d 130, 265 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



24 



authorized constitutionally even by express stat- 
ute. 84 However, such service may be sufficient to 
support a judgment in rem, or quasi in rem, as dis- 
cussed infra 908, 911. Although there is author- 
ity to the contrary, 85 it has been held that extra- 
territorial service on a resident of the state will not 
support a personal judgment, 86 and that, in the ab- 
sence of statute, a personal judgment is void, even 
where it is based on the service of process within 
the state, but beyond the limits of the county or dis- 
trict, which comprise the territorial jurisdiction of 
the court.* 7 



4. Nonresidents 

A vatid personal Judgment may be rendered against 
a nonresident only where he is brought within the Juris- 
diction of the court by the service of process or notice 
on him within its territorial Jurisdiction, or by his vol- 
untarily appearing and submitting to Its Jurisdiction. 
Mere constructive or substituted service Is not sufficient. 

A valid persona;! judgment may be rendered against 
a nonresident only where he has been brought with- 
in the jurisdiction of the court by the service of 
process or notice made on him within its territorial 
jurisdiction, 88 or by such service on some one au- 



Div. $70, affirmed 50 N.E.24 800, 
290 N.T. 907 Heilbrun v. Kellogg, 
1 N.T.S.2d 193, 253 App.Div. 753, 
motion denied 16 N,E.2d 104, 278 
N.Y. 564, motion granted 18 N.B.2d 
312, 279 N.T. 683, affirmed 18 N. 
B.2d 861, 279 N.T. 773 Gore v. 
Pennsylvania R. Co., 259 N.T.S. 
410, 144 Misc. 639, affirmed 260 N. 
T.S. 941, 236 App.D*v. 881 Engel 
v. Engel, 22 N.T.S.2d 445- Merkle 
v. Sable, 197 N.T.S. 576. 

N.C. Casey v. Barker. 14 S.E.2d 429, 
219 N.C. 465. 

N.D. Darling & Co. v. Burchard, 
284 N.W. 856, 69 N.D. 212. 

Ohio. Ades v. Ades, 45 N.E.2d 416, 
70 Ohio App. 487. 

Okl. Royal Neighbors of America 
v. Fletcher, 227 P. 426, 99 Okl. 
297. 

Or. Mt. Vernon Nat. Bank v. Morse, 
264 P. 439, 128 Or. 64. 

Fa. Vaughn v. Love, 188 A. 299, 
324 Pa. 276, 107 A.L.R, 1336 
Potter v. 'Potter, 42 Pa.Dist & Co. 
42 Evans v. Todd, Com.Pl., 35 
Luz.Leg. Reg. 102. 

Tenn. Dickson v. Simpson, 113 S. 
W.2d 1190, 172 Tennu 680, 116 A. 
L.R. 380 -Commerce Union Bank 
v. Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 
Tenn.App. 451. 

Tex. Bradshaw v. Peacock, Civ. 
App., 191 S.W.2d 698 Knox v. 
Quinn, Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 580 
Eaton v. Husted, Civ. App., 163 
S.W.2d 439, affirmed 172 S.W.2d 
493, 141 Tex. 349 Hicks v. Sias, 
Civ.App., 102 S.W.2d 460, error re- 
fused Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App., 
54 S.W.2d 1013 Blair v. Carney* 
Civ.App.. 44 S.W.2d 1031, error re- 
fused Wilson v. Beck, Civ.App., 
286 S.W. 315. 

Utah. Ricks v. Wade, 93 P.2d 47$, 
97 Utah 402. 

Wash. State v. Plummer, 226 P. 
273, 130 Wash. 135. 

33 C.J. p 1084 note 17. 

In equity see Equity fi 175 b. 

Extraterritorial service generally see 
the C.J.S. title Process 32, also 
50 C.J. p 474 note 76~p 476 note 
25. 

Personal service out of state in lieu 
of publication see the C.J.S. title 



Process 73, 74, also 50 C.J. P 
542 note 80-p 545 note 54. , 

Courts exercise utmost care and 
good faith in dealing with nonresi- 
dents against whom personal judg- 
ment is sought oh notice served out- 
side state. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 
of New York v. Bank of Plymputh, 
237 N.W. 234, 213 Iowa 1058. 

84. U.S. Pennoyer v. Nefl, Or., 95 
U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565. 

Iowa. Allen v. Allen, 298 N.W. 869, 
230 Iowa 504, 136 A.L.R. 617. 

33 C.J. p 1085 note 18. 

Under "due process" clause see Con- 
stitutional Law 619. 

85. Tex. Becker v. Becker, Civ. 
App., 218 S.W. 542 McCaulley v. 
Western National Bank, Civ.App. f 
173 S.W. 1000. 

8& Cal. Pinon v. Pollard, 158 P.2d 

254, 69 Cal.App.2d 129. 
111. Barnett v. Cook County, 26 N. 

E.2d 862, 373 111. 516. 
33 C.J. p 1085 note 23. 
By publication and mail 

' Service of summons on a resident 
of state absent therefrom by pub- 
lication and mailing of copy of sum- 
mons and complaint to defendant's 
address outside the state did not 
give court jurisdiction to enter mon- 
ey judgment against defendant in 
personal injury action. Pinon v. 
Pollard, 158 P.2d 254, 69 Cal.App.2d 
169. 

87. Neb. Braun v. Quinn, 199 N.W. 
828, 112 Neb. 485, 39 A.L.R. 411. 

33 C.J. p 1085 note 27. 

88. U.S. Wilson v. Seligman, Mo., 
12 S.Ct 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 UEd. 
338 McQuillen v. National Cash 
Register Co.. C.C.A.Md., 112 F.2d 
877, certiorari denied 61 S.Ct. 140, 
311 U.S. 695, 85 L.Ed. 450, re- 
hearing denied 61 S.Ct. 316, -311 U. 
S. 729, 85 L.Ed. 474 McQuillen 
v. Dillon, C.C.A.N.T., 98 F.2d 726, 
certiorari denied 59 S.Ct 251, 305 
U.S. 655, 83 L.Ed. 424 Oxley v. 
Sweetlaud, C.C.A,W.Va., 94 F.2d 
33 Chicago Joint -Stock Land 
Bank v. Minnesota Loan & Trust 
Co., C.C.A.Minn., 57 P.2d 70 
Beaver Board Cos. v. Imbrie, D.C. 
N.T., 47 P.2d 271. 

57 



Ala. Campbell v. State, 5 So.2d 466, 
242 Ala. 215 Naff T. Fairfleld- 
American Nat Bank, 165 So. 224, 
231 Ala, 388. 

Ark. Sinclair Refining Co. v. 
Bounds, 127 S.W.Sd 629, 198 Ark. 
149 Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W. 
2d 178, 193 Ark. 473. 

D.C. Densby v. Acacia Mut. Life 
Ass'n, 78 P.2d 203, 64 App.D.C. 
319, 101 A.L.R. 863. 

Del. Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon, 
196 A. 158, 9 W.W.Harr. 22. 

Ga. Blount v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 9 S.E.2d 65, 190 Ga. 301 
I^in v. Nix, 7 S.E.2d 733, 189 
Ga. 772 Coral Gables Corporation 
v. Hamilton, 147 S.E. 494, 168 Ga. 
182 Wyse'v. McKinney, 179 S.E. 
860, 51 Ga-App. 204. 

111. Dunham v. Kauffman, 52 N.E. 
2d 143, 385 lit 79. 154 A.L.R. 90. 

Iowa. McGaffin v. Helmts, 230 N.W. 
532, 210 Iowa 108. 

Ky. Kitchen v. New Tork Trust 
Co., 168 S.W.2d 5. 292 Ky. 706. 

Md. Employers' Liability Assur. 
Corporation v. -Perkins, 181 A. 43$. 
169 Md. 269. 

Mass. Harvey v. Fiduciary Trust 
Co., 13 N.E.2d 299, 299 Mass. 457 
Durfee v. Durfee, 200 NJ33. 395, 
293 Mass. 472 Schmidt v. 
Schmidt, 182 N.E. 374, 280 Mass. 
2-16 Kling v. McTaraahan. 178 N. 
E. 8*1. 277 Mass. 886. 

Mich. -Stewart v. Eaton, 283 N.W. 
651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R. 1354. 

N.M. State ex rel. Truitt v. District 
Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., Cur- 
ry County, 96 P.3d 710, 44 N.M. 
16, 126 A.L.R. 651. 

N.T. Jackson v. Jackson, 49 N.B.2d 
988, 290 N.T. 512, 147 A.L.R. 668 
Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d 67, 272 
N.T, 330, 108 A.L.R. 1293 Gar- 
fein v. Mdnnls, 162 N.E. 73, 248 
N.T. 261 Kittredge v. Grannis, 
155 N.E. 93, 244 N.T. 182 Stoltz 
v. Stoltz, 238 N.T.S. 207, 1S5 Misc. 
713 In re Auto Mut Indemnity 
Co., 14 N.T.S.2d 601 Rodier v. 
Fay, 7 N.T.S.2d 744. 

N.C.: Adams & Childers v. Parker 
& Harrison, 138 S.E. 405, 194 N. 
C. 48, 

Tex. Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App./ 
101 S.W.2d 1046, certiorari granted 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



iorized to accept service in his behalf,** or by his 
voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdic- 
tion of the court, 90 or by his otherwise waiving 
lack of service or jurisdiction. 91 A personal judg- 



ment rendered without such service of process or 
notice on the nonresident, or his voluntary appear- 
ance or waiver, is void, 92 even though he had 
knowledge of the pendency of the action or pro- 



58 S.Ct. 28, 302 U.S. 668, 82 L. 
Ed. 515, reversed on other grounds 
58 S.Ct. 454, 303 U.-S. 59, 82 L.Ed. 
649, rehearing denied 58 S.Ct. 640, 
303 U.S. 666, 82 L.Ed. 1123, cer- 
tlorari denied Saenger v. Adam, 59 
<3.Ct 832, 307 U.S. 628, 83 L.Ed. 
1511 Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App., 
54 S.W.2d 1013 Flinn v. Krot2, 
Civ.App., 293 S.W. 625. 
Wyo. Closson v. Closson, 215 P. 

485, 30 Wyo. 1, 29 A.L.R. 1371. 
33 C.J. p 1085 note 29, p 1086 note 

33, p'l075 note 58. 

Extraterritorial service as insuffi- 
cient see supra subdivision d of 
this section. 

Joint defendants see infra S 83. 
Jurisdiction of nonresidents gener- 
ally see Courts 88-87. 
A state has power to provide for 
notice of actions against nonresi- 
dents found within its borders in 
such manner as it may see fit and 
to render personal judgments 
against them based thereon, pro- 
vided method employed gives rea- 
sonable notice and affords fair op- 
portunity to be heard before Issues 
are decided. Taplin v. Atwater, 8 
N.E.2d 786, 297 Mass. 302. 
Sufficiency of service 

A nonresident defendant who is 
served in person in commonwealth 
with notice of pendency of action 
warning defendant to appear and 
show cause why judgment should 
not be rendered against him is a 
party to action so that a binding 
personal judgment may be rendered 
against him, since notice itself is 
"process" within statute permitting 
personal action to be maintained 
against nonresident who has been 
served with process in common- 
wealth, Taplin v. Atwater, 8 
786, 297 Mass. 302. 
Service anywhere in state mfflcient 
La. Roper v. Brooks, 9 3o.2d 485, 
201 La. 135 Union City Transfer 
v. Fields, App., 199 So. 206. 
A0 against heirs 

Where no personal judgment had 
been obtained against nonresident 
for lack of personal service within 
state, complainants acquired no 
greater rights against resident heirs 
of nonresident where nonresident 
died pending appeal Commerce Un- 
ion Bank v. Sharber, TennApp., 100 
S,W.2d 243. 

89. Ark. Sinclair Refining Co. v. 
Bounds, 127 S.W.2d 629, 198 Ark. 
149. 
Del. Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon, 

196 A. 158, 9 W.W.B3arr. 22. 
La. Mitchell v. Ernesto, App., 141 
So. 818. 



Md. Employers' Liability Assur. 
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A. 
436, 169 Md. 269. 

Attorney's acknowledgment of serv- 
ice 

Ga. Davis v. Davis, 21 S.E. 1002, 
96 Ga. 136. 

Notice to attorney, as required toy 
statute 

Ala. Timmerman v. Martin, 176 So. 
198, 234 Ala. 622. 

Service on truck driver insufficient 

Ark. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of 
Southeast Arkansas v. O'Neal, 104 
S.W.2d 808, 19-3 Ark. 1143. 

9a U.S. Wilson v. Seligman, Mo., 
12 S.Ct. 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 L. 
Ed. "338 McQuillen v. National 
Cash Register Co., C.C.A.Md., 112 
F.2d 877, certiorari denied 61 S. 
Ct. 140, 311 U.S. 695, 85 L.Ed. 450, 
rehearing denied 61 S.Ct 316, 311 
U.S. 729, 85 L.Ed. 474 Oxley v. 
Sweetland, C.C.A.W.Va., 94 F.2d 
33 Chicago Joint Stock Land 
Bank v. Minnesota Loan & Trust 
Co., aC.A.Minn., 57 F.2d 70. 

Ala. Naff v. Fairfleld-American Nat. 
Bank, 165 So. 224, 231 Ala. 388 
Stoer v. Ocklawaha River Farms 
Co., 138 So. 270, 223 Ala. 690. 

Ark. Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W. 
2d 178, 193 Ark, 473. 

Cal. Pinon v. Pollard, App., 158 P. 
2d 254. 

Ga. Fain v. Nix, 7 S.E.2d 733, 189 
Ga. 772 Peeples v. Mullins, 168 S. 
E. 785, 176 Ga. 743 Irons v. 
American Nat Bank, 165 S.E. 738, 
175 Ga. 552, followed in 165 S.E. 
741, 175 Ga. 558 Coral Gables 
Corporation v. Hamilton, 147 S.E. 
494, 168 Ga. 182 Wyse v. McKin- 
ney, 179 S.E. 860, 51 Ga.App. 204 
Rhodes v. Southern Flour & 
Grain Co., 163 S.E. 237, 45 GaApp. 
13. 

Ky. Kitchen v. New Tork Trust 
Co., 168 S.W.2d 5, 292 Ky. 706 
Dean v. Stillwell, 145 S.W.2d 830, 
284 Ky. 639. 

Md. Employers' Liability Assur. 
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A, 436, 
169 Md. 269. 

Mass. Harvey v. Fiduciary Trust 
Co., 13 N.E.2d 299, 299 Mass. 457 
Schmidt v. Schmidt 182 N.E. 
374, 280 Mass. 216. 

Mich. Stewart v. Eaton, 283 N.W. 
651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R. 1354. 

Mo. Publicity Bldg. Realty Corpo- 
ration v. Thpmann, 183 S.W.2d 69, 
353 Mo. 493 Hoffman v. Mechan- 
ics-American Nat. Bank of St 
Louis, App., 287 S.W. 874. 

N.T.-^Jackson v. Jackson, 49 N.E.2d 
988, 290 N.T. 512, 147 A.L.R. 668 
Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d 67, 

58 



272 N.T. 390, 108 AL.R. 1293 
Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 N.E. 93, 
244 N.T. 182 Rodier v. Fay, 7 N. 
T.S.2d 744. 

N.C. Southern Mills v. Armstrong, 
27 S.E.2d 281, 23 N.C. 495, 148 A. 
L.R. 1248 Bridger v. Mitchell, 121 
S.E. 661, 187 N.C. 374. 

Tex. Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App., 101 
S.W.2d 1046, certiorari granted 58 
S.Ct. 28, 302 U.-S. 668, 82 L.Ed. 
515, reversed on other grounds 58 
S.Ct 454, 303 U.S. 59, 82 L.Ed. 649, 
rehearing denied 58 S.Ct 640, 303 
U.S. 666, 82 L.Bd. 1123, certiorari 
denied Saenger v. Adams, 59 S.Ct. 
832, 307 U.S. 628, 83 L.Ed. 1511 
Flinn v. Krotz, Civ App., 29 
S.W. 625. 

33 C.J. p 1085 note 30, p 1086 note 
33, p 1075 note 58. 



Where nonresident defendant 
represented by curator only and 
there was no personal appearance, 
no judgment could be rendered 
against him. Robinson v. U. S., D. 
C.La,, 33 F.2d 545, reversed on other 
grounds, C.C.A., U. S. v. Robinson, 
40 F.2d 14. 
Special appearance 

If defendant appearing specially 
was nonresident at time of service 
of writ no judgment could be ren- 
dered against him. Bay State 
Wholesale Drug Co. v. Whitman, 182 
N.E. 361, 280 Mass. 188. 

Judgment on cross demand may 
be rendered against a nonresident 
plaintiff submitting to the juris- 
diction of the court by the institu- 
tion of the suit. Andrews v. White- 
head, Tex.Civ.App., 60 S.W. 800. 
93* U.S. Wilson v. Seligman, Mo., 
12 S.Ct. 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 L. 
Ed. 338. 

Ga. Blount v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 9 S.E.2d 65, 190 Ga. 301 
Coral Gables Corporation v. 
Hamilton, 147 S.E. 494, 168 Ga. 
182. 

Md. Employers' Liability Assur. 
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A. 436, 
169 Md. 269. 
33 C.JT. p 1086 note 34. 
92. U.S. Commonwealth of Ken- 
tucky, for Use and Benefit of Kern 
v. Maryland Casualty Co. of Bal- 
timore, Md., C.C.A.Ky., 112 F.2d 
352 Beaver Board Cos. v. Imbrie, 
D.C.N.T., 47 F.2d 271. 
Ala. Ex parte Luther, 168 So. 59 6, 
232 Ala. 518 Ex parte Halsten, 
149 So. 213, 227 Ala, 183 Ex parte 
Cullinan, 139 So. 255, 224 Ala. 263, 
81 A.L.R. 160 Stoer v. Ocklawaha 
River Farms Co., 138 So. 270, 223 
Ala. 690. 
Del. Hall v. Trans-Lux Daylight 



49 C J. S. 



JUDGMENTS 



24 



ceeding.93 It has been held that the fact that de- 
fendant is domiciled within the state does not jus- 
tify the rendition of a judgment in personam against 
him, where the only service of process is by publi- 
cation, and he is without the territorial limits of the 
state and does not appear. 94 

Constructive or substituted service alone, will not 
support a personal judgment against a nonresi- 



dent, 95 unless he can be deemed to have assented to 
such -mode of service. 96 , A statute purporting to 
authorize a judgment against nonresidents on con- 
structive or extraterritorial service has been held 
to that extent unconstitutional and void. 97 Flow- 
ever, it has been held that constructive service, as 
by publication, will give the court such jurisdiction 
over a nonresident that its judgment, although not 



Picture Screen Corporation, 171 

A. 226, 20 Del.Ch. 78. 
Ga. Ford v. Southern Ry. Co., 125 

S.E. 479, 33 Ga.App. 24. 
La. Krotz Springs Oil & Mineral 

Water Co. v. Shirk, 116 So. 488, 

165 La. 1005. 
Mass. Commissioner of Banks v. 

Cosmopolitan Trust Co., 148 N.B. 

609, 253 Mass. 205, 41 A.L.R. 658. 
Miss. Hume v. Inglis, 122 So. 535, 

154 Miss. 481. 
N.T. Sweeney v. National Assets 

Corporation, 246 N.T.S. 315, 139 

Misc. 223. 
N.C. Bizzell v. Mitchell, 142 S.E. 

706, 195 N.C. 484 Bridger v. 

Mitchell, 121 S.E. 661, 187 N.C. 

374. 
Tex. Hicks v. -Sias, Civ.App., 102 S. 

W.2d 460, error refused Steger 

v. Shofner, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 

1013. 

"A person residing outside the 
state is not required to come within 
its borders and submit his contro- 
versy to its courts because of notice 
of the suit at the place of his resi- 
dence, and an ordinary personal 
judgment for money, invalid for 
want of service amounting to due 
process of law, Is as ineffective in 
as outside the state." Common- 
wealth of Kentucky, for Use and 
Benefit of Kern v. Maryland Casu- 
alty Co. of Baltimore, McU, C.C.A. 
Ky., 112 P.2d 352, 555. 

Judgment on cross petition against 
nonresident defendants, where no 
process was issued on cross petition, 
is void. 
Ky. Carter v, Capshaw, 60 S.W.2d 

959, 249 Ky. 483. 

Tex. Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App., 
101 S.W.2d 1046, reversed on oth- 
er grounds 58 S.Ct. 454, 303 U.S. 
59, 82 L.Ed. 649, rehearing denied 
58 S.Ct 640, 303 U.S. 666, 82 L.Ed. 
1123, certiorari denied Saenger v. 
Adam, 59 'S.Ct. 832, 307 U.S. 628,* 
83 L.Ed. 1511. 

Unauthorized appearance l>y attor- 
ney 

Appearance of attorney for non- 
resident does not give court juris- 
diction over nonresident, and per- 
sonal Judgment obtained against 
nonresident is void ab initio, if ap- 
pearance was unauthorized. 
N.T. Amusement Securities Corpo- 
ration v. Academy Pictures Dis- 
tributing Corporation, 295 N.Y.S. 



436, 251 App.Div. 227, affirmed 294 
N.T.S. 305, 250 App.Div. 710 and 
294 N.T.S. 306, 250 App.Div. 710, 
motions denied 295 N.T.S. 472, 250 
App.Div. 749, affirmed 13 N.E.2d 
471, 277 N.T. 557, reargument de- 
nied 14 N.E.2d 383, 277 N.T. 672. 
Okl. Hatfleld v. Lewis, 236 P. 611, 
110 Okl. 98. 

93. Mich. Stewart v. Baton, 283 N. 
W. 651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R. 
1354. 

94. Cal. De La Montanya v. De La 
Montanya, 44 P. -345, 112 CaL 101, 
53 Am.S.R. 165, 82 L.R.A. 82. 

Or. Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d 
568, 161 Or. 295. 

95. U.S. Warmsprings Irr. Dist v. 
May, C.C.A.Or., 117 F.2d 802 Mc- 
Quillen v. Dillon, C.C.A.N.T., 98 
F.2d 726, certiorari denied 59 S.Ct 
251, 305 U.S. 655, 83 L.Ed. 424 
Hamilton Michelsen Groves Co. v. 
Penney, C.C.A.Fla., 58 F.2d 761 
Campbell v. City of Hickman, D. 
C.Ky., 45 F.Supp. 517. 

Cal. Comfort v. Comfort, 112 P.2d 
259, 17 Cal.2d 736 Glaston v. 
Glaston, 160 P.2d 45, 69 Cal.App.2d 
787, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct 484 
Pinon v. Pollard. 158 P.2d 254, 
69 Cal.App.2d 129. 

Fla. Newton v. Bryan, 194 So. 282, 
142 Fla. 14 Harris Inv. Co. v. 
Hood, 167 So. 25, 123 Fla. 598. 

Ga. Hirsch v. Northwestern Mut. 
Life Ins. Co., 13 S.E.2d 165, 191 
Ga. 524 Corpus Juris quoted in 
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc- 
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 
885, 188 Ga. 291 Peoples v. Mul- 
lins, 168 S.E. 785, 176 Ga. 743 
Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Hood, 145 S. 
B. 87, 167 Ga. 144 Ford v. South- 
ern Ry. Co., 125 S.E. 479, 33 Ga. 
App. 24. 

111. Bank of Edwardsville v. Raf- 
faelle, 45 N.E.2d 651, 381 111. 486, 
144 A.L.R. 401 Barnett v. Cook 
County, 26 N.E.2d 862, 373 111. 
516 Griffin v. Cook County, 16 
N.E.2d 906, 369 HI. 380, 118 A.L.R. 
1157 Austin v. Royal League, 147 
N.E. 106, 316 111. 188. 

Ind. Pattison v. Grant Trust & Sav- 
ings Co., 144 N.E. 26, 195 Ind. 813. 

Ky. Dean v. Stillwell, 145 S.W.2d 
830, 284 Ky. 639. 

Miss. Hume v. Inglis, 122 So. 535, 
154 Miss. 481. 

Mo. "HoflCuaan v. Mechanics- Am gri- 

59 



can Nat Bank of St Liouis, App., 

287 S.W. 874. 
Nev. Perry v. Edmonds, 84 P.2d 711, 

59 Nev. 60. 
N.T. Kellogg v. Kellogg, 203 N.T. 

S. 757, 122 Misc. 734. 
N.C. Southern Mills v. Armstrong, 

27 S.E.2d 281, 223 N.C. 495, 143 

A.L.R. 1248 Bridger v. Mitchell, 

121 S,E. 661, 187 N.C. 374. 
Okl. Royal Neighbors of America v 

Fletcher, 227 P. 426, 99 Okl. 297. 
Or. Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d 

568, 161 Or. 295. 
Pa. Atlantic Seaboard Natural Gas 

Co. v. Whitten. 173 A. 305, 315 Pa. 

529, 93 A.L.R. 615 Hughes V. 

Hughes, 158 A. 874, 306 Pa, 75. 
Tenn. Lawson v. American Laundry 

Machinery Co.. 54 S.W.2d 712, 165 

Tenn. ISO Commerce Union Bank 

v. Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 

Tenn. App. 451. 
Tex. Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App. f 54 

S.W.2d 1013 First Nat. Bank v. 

C. H. Meyers & Co., Civ.App., 283 

S.W. 265 People's Guaranty State 

Bank v. Hill, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 

683. 
Wis. Riley v. State Bank of De 

Pere, 269 S.W. 722, 223 Wis. 16. 
Wyo. Fremont Consol. Oil Co. v. 

Anderson, 12 P.2d 369, 44 Wyo. 

313. 
33 C.J. p 1085 note 31. 

Service by registered mail insuffi- 
cient 
Ala. Campbell v. State, 5 So.2d 466, 

242 Ala. 215. 

Miss. Cudahy Packing Co. v. Smith, 
2 So.2d 347, 191 Miss. 31. 
Contractual rights cannot* be liti- 
gated cm constructive notice against 
nonresidents. McKleroy v. Dishxnan, 
142 So. 41, 225 Ala. 131. 
On cross bill 

A cross bill stands as original suit 
after dismissal of original bill, so 
that judgment thereon against non- 
resident on notice only by publicar 
tion is void. Lawson v. American 
Laundry Machinery Co., 54 S.W.2d 
712, 165 Tenn. 180. 

96. . Fla. Newton v. Bryan, 194 So. 
282, 142 Fla. 14. 

97. U.S. Cella Commn. Co. v. Boh- 
linger, Ark., 147 F. 419, 78 C.CJL 
467, 8 L.R.A.,N.S.,.637. 

33 C.J. p 1086 note 35. 

Under "due process" clause see Con- 
stitutional Law 619, 



24 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



enforceable beyond the state, may be satisfied out 
of any property of defendant found within the 
state, 98 and within the jurisdiction of the court," 
and to that extent he is bound by the judgment, 
provided all the precedent proceedings relating to 
such service strictly conform to the law. 1 Never- 
theless, the generally prevailing rule is that a per- 
sonal judgment against a nonresident rendered on 
constructive service is void for all purposes, even 
within the state where it has been rendered, 2 un- 
less defendant appears, 8 or unless specific property 
within the state has been attached, and thus sub- 
jected to the jurisdiction of the court. 4 Where nei- 
ther person nor property of a nonresident is found 
within the state, a judgment with respect to the 
rights or obligations of the nonresident is without 
jurisdiction and wholly void. 5 

f . Attachment and Garnishment 

A valid Judgment in person am may be rendered 



against a defendant In an action begun by attachment 
or garnishment only where he has been personally served 
with process within the territorial Jurisdiction of the 
court or has voluntarily appeared and submitted to Its 
Jurisdiction. 

Where jurisdiction of an action is acquired by 
attachment or garnishment of defendant's property 
or credits, although the property or credits so at- 
tached or garnished may be subjected to, and bound 
by, a judgment rendered in such action, as a judg- 
ment in rem, or quasi in rem, as discussed infra 
908, 911, a valid general judgment in personam may 
be rendered against defendant only where he has 
been personally served with process, 6 or where he 
voluntarily appears in the action and thus subjects 
himself to the jurisdiction of the court, 7 as where 
he files a forthcoming or replevy bond. 8 Under 
some statutes, if defendant is about to remove the 
property from the state with the intent to hinder 
or delay creditors, arid all the parties are before 
the court, a personal judgment may be rendered 



98. Ala. Turnipseed v. Blan, 148 
So. 116, 226 Ala, 649. 

Tex. People's Guaranty State Bank 

v. Hill, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 683. 
33 O.J. p 1086 note 36. 

Ownership of notes and checks 
follows domicile of their owner, and 
the notes and checks do not con- 
stitute "money" or "effects" with 
situs independent of owner's domi- 
cile. Steger v. Shofner, TexiCiv. 
App., 54 S.W.2d 1013, 

99. Ind. Clark v. Clark, 172 N.E. 
* 124, 202 Ind. 104, 

Tenn. Commerce Union Bank v. 

Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn. 

App. 451. 
Tex. Wilson v. Beck, Civ. App., 286 

S.W. 315. 
Wyo. Fremont Consol. Oil Co. v. 

Anderson, 12 P.2d 369, 44 Wyo. 

313. 

1. Miss. Mercantile Acceptance 
Corporation v. Hedgepeth, 112 So. 
872, 147 Miss. 717. 

33 O.J. p 1088 note 57. 

2. N.T. Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d 
67, 272 N.Y. 300, 108 A.L.R. 1293 
Forster v. Forster, 46 N.Y.S.2d 
320, 182 Misc. 382. 

33 C.J. p 1087 note 37. 

& N.Y. Forster v. Forster, supra. 
3* C.J. p 1087 note 38. 

4L U.S. Pexmoyer v. Nefl, Or., 95 
S.Ct 714, 24 L..Ed. 565 Heyde- 
mann v. Westinghouse Electric 
Mfg. Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 80 F.2d 837. 

Ariz. Porter v. Duke, 270 -P. 625, 
34 Ariz. 217. 

Mass. Roberts v. Anheuser Busch 
Brewing Ass'n, 102 N.E. 8' 16, 215 
Mass. 341. 

K.Y. Haase T. Michigan Steel Boat 
Co., 132 N.Y.S. 1046, 148 AppJDiv. 
298, appeal dismissed 104 NJE. 



1131, 210 N.Y. 602 Forster v. 
Forster, 46 N.Y.S.2d 320, 182 Misc. 
382/ 

N.C. Adams & Childers v. Packer & 
Harrison, 138 S.E. 405, 194 N.C. 48. 
Judgment in action begun by at- 
tachment or garnishment general- 
ly see infra subdivision f of this 
section. 

Judgment held void, on service by 
publication, after attachment of sup- 
posed interest in realty, which did 
not in fact exist. Matthews v, Cur- 
tis, 151 N.E. 778, 20 Ohio App. 209. 
After dissolution of the attach, 
ment, there can be no judgment 
against defendant, where the juris- 
diction in attachment was obtained 
by constructive service only. Theo. 
Ascher Co, v, Dougherty, 114 S.W. 
1111, 134 Mo.App. 511. 

5. Ariz. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Smith v. Normart, 75 P.2d 38, 41, 
51 Ariz. 134. 

33 C.J. p 1087 note 41. 

a Ala. Oliver v. Klnney, 56 So. 

203, 173 Ala. 593. 
Ariz. Brown v. First Nat. Bank of 

Winslow, 129 P.2d 664, 59 Ariz. 

392. 
Fla. Johnson v. Clark, 193 So. 842, 

145 Fla. 258. 
Ga. Collins v. Southern Finance 

Corporation, 180 S.E. 744, 51 Ga. 

App. 400. 

111. Bloom v. Kahl, 255 Ill.App. 456. 
Xja. Silvennan v. Grinnell, 115 So. 

789, 165 La. 587. 
K.Y. Swedosh v. Belding Hosiery 

Mills, 6 N.Y.S.2d 532, 168 Misc. 

673. 
Okl. Davies v. Thompson, 160 P. 75, 

61 Okl. 21, L.BJL1917B 395. 
Tex. 'Big Four Shoe Stores Co. v. 

Ludlaaa, O.V.APP., 63 S.W.2d-8S5. 

60 



Va. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Par- 

rish, 143 S.E. 7.50, 150 Va. 473. 
33 C.J. p 1088 notes 4, 51 6 C.J. p 

473 note 43. 
Process or: 

Appearance in garnishment pro- 
ceeding generally see Garnish- 
ment 123. 

Notice in main action In general 

see Attachment 5 482-490. 
Judgment for excess 

In order to warrant recovery In 
attachment proceeding exceeding 
value of property impounded by 
writ, there must be valid personal 
service of summons. Purnell v. 
Morton Live Stock Co., 1 S.W.2* 
1013, 156 Tenn. 383. 

Statutory notice to, and service 
on, defendant In attachment take 
place of process and service in com- 
mon-law actions, both of which sub- 
ject him personally to court's juris- 
diction and render him liable to 
judgment binding all his property. 
Peacock v. J. L Case Co., 162 S.BL 
30G, 44 GaJLpp. 499. 

7. Ala. Oliver v. Kinney, 56 So. 
203, 173 Ala, 593. 

Ga. Collins v. Southern Finance 

Corporation, 180 S.E. 744, 51 Ga. 

App. 400. 
Va. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Par- 

rish, 143 S.E. 750, 150 Va. 473. 
33 C.J. p 1088 note 5-3 6 OJ. p 478 

notes 12, 13. 

8. Ga. Collins v. -Southern Finance 
Corporation, ISO S.E. 744, 61 Ga. 
App. 400 Blakely Milling A Trad- 
Ing Co. v. Thompson, 128 S.E. 688, 
34 Ga.App. 129 HensJey v. Mine- 
han, 114 S.E. 647, 29 Ga.App. 251. 

33 CJ. p 1088 note 53 [d], [e]. 

Effect of filing bond on right to pro- 
ceed to judgment see Attachment 
5 313 b (3). 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



against him without the issuance of new process. 9 
Nonresidents. The same rules apply where de- 
fendant in such an action is a nonresident; a val- 
id personal judgment may be rendered against him 
only where he has been personally served with 
process, within the jurisdiction of the court, 10 or 
has voluntarily appeared and submitted to the ju- 
risdiction of the court, 11 or acknowledges service 
of the writ and waives the benefit of the statutes 
respecting absent defendants ; 12 and, in the absence 
of such service or appearance, a judgment although 
expressed in general terms will be effective only 
against the property so attached, as discussed infra 
908, 911. It cannot be made the basis of further 
proceedings in personam against defendant. 13 



g. Defective Process 

A Judgment is void if it is based on a process which 
is so radlcaliy defective as to be equivalent to no proc- 
ess; but may be merely voidable if the defect is a mere- 
irregularity which does not prevent the process from 
constituting legal notice to defendant. 

A judgment is void where it is based on process 
which is so radically defective as to be equivalent to 
no process, 14 and this rule applies with respect to- 
such a defect in the issuance of an alias or pluries 
writ. 15 A defective process, however, may be suf- 
ficient to constitute legal notice and support the 
judgment, 16 and if the process, although imperfect 
or irregular in some particulars, is sufficiently com- 
plete to constitute a legal notice to defendant, and 
to inform him of the essential facts he is entitled to 
know, the consequent judgment is not void, 17 par- 



9. Ark. Hutchison v. First Nat. 
Bank, 24$ S.W. 484, 156 Ark. 142. 

10. Ga. Chastain v. Alford. 20 S.E. 
2d 150, 67 Ga.App. 316. 

Idaho. Sunderlln v. Warner, 246 P. 

1. 42 Idaho 479. 
111. Hogue v. Corbit, 41 N.E. 219, 

156 111. 540, 47 Am.S.R. 232. 
Iowa. Darrah v. Watson, 86 Iowa 

116. 

La. -Pelican Well & Tool Supply Co. 
v. Johnson, 195 So. 514, 194 La. 
987 Latham v. Glasscock, 108 So. 
1"00, 160 La. 1089 Whitney Central 
Trust & Savings Bank v. Norton, 
102 So. 306, 157 La. 199. 
Miss. Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492, 
168 Miss. 682 Clark v. Louisville 
& N. R. Co., 130 So. 302, 158 Miss. 
287. 

Mo. State ex reL Ferrocarriles Na- 
clonales Be Mexico v. Rutledge, 56 
S.W.2d 28, 331 Mo. 1015, 85 A.L.R. 
1375, certiorari denied Ferrocar- 
riles Nacionales De Mexico v. Rut- 
ledge, 53 S.Ct. 689, 289 U.S. 746, 
77 L.Bd. 1492. 
Tex. Colby v. McClendon, dv.App., 

116 S.W.2d 505. 
83 C.J. p 1089 note 59. 
Judgment not "personal" 

In action on note and open ac- 
count accompanied by on attach- 
ment of land of nonresident defend- 
ant, Judgment ordering sale of the 
attached property and appropriation 
of the proceeds to payment of the 
debt sued on was not erroneous as 
a "personal judgment" against the 
nonresident Hall v. Bradley, 160 
S.W.2d 641, 290 Ky. 120. 

Where garnishment is filed against 
resident garnishee, the court ac- 
quires jurisdiction over the gar 
nlshee and the nonresident defend- 
ant to the extent of the value of the 
property in the hands of the garoi- 
shee, and the court may then pro 
ceed to a trial of the issues, and i 
court finds that the gaxnishee is <nof 
indebted to defendant, power of th 



ourt further to proceed against de- 
endant is ended. Colby v. McClen- 
don, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 505. 

. Del. Teatman v. Ward, Super., 

36 A.2d (855. 
Ga. Chastain v. Alford, 20 S.E.2d 

150, 67 Ga.App. 316. 
ni. Kerr v. Swallow, 33 111. 379. 
Miss. Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492, 

168 Miss. 682 Clark v. Louisville 

& N. R. Co., 130 So. 302, 158 Miss. 

287. 
Tex. Minero v. Ross, Civ.App., 138 

S.W. 224. 
Special appearance 

Nonresident defendant's appear- 
ance for sole purpose of dissolving 
attachment, if sustained, defeats 
court's Jurisdiction. Adams v. Ross 
Amusement Co., 161 So. 601, 182 La. 
252. 
12. Mass. Richardson v. Smith, 11 

Allen 134. 

18. U.S. Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
Midland Tire & Rubber Co., C.C.A. 
Ohio, 285 F. 214. 

33 C.J. p 1089 note 60. 

14. Fla. Seaboard All-Florida Ry. 
v. Leavitt, 141 So, 886, 105 Fla. 
600. 

Ky. Richardson v. Webb, 185 S.W. 
2d 861, 281 Ky. 201. 

La. Dickey v. Pollock, App., 183 So. 
48 'Longino v. Home Ins. Co. of 
New York, 138 So. 687, 18 La.App. 
680. 

tf.Y. Greater New York Export 
House v. Hurtig, 267 N.Y.S. 173 
2139 App.Div. 183, appeal dismissed 
Greater New York Export House 
v. Peirson, 196 N.E. 290, 265 N.Y 
500. 

S.D. Corpus Jtols quoted in Jacobs 
v. Queen Ins. Co. of America, 213 
N.W. 14, 51 S.D. 249. 

Tex. Wise v. Southern Rock Islanc 
Plow Co.. Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 257 
Cheshire v. Palmer, Civ.App., 44 
S.W.2d 438 Ross v. Sechrist, Civ 
App., 275 S.W. 287 Lepp v. Ward 

61 



County Water Improvement Dist. 
No. 2, Civ.App., 257 S.W. 916. 
3 C.J. p 1090 note 6734 C.J. p 5S& 
notes 45, 46. 
Fatal defects 

(1) Failure to state the time and 
lace for defendant's appearance. 

Venetsianos v. Tamasoff, 197 A. 885, 
W.W.Harr., Del., 18033 C.J. P 
090 note 67 [b] (14). 

(2) Making return day an impos- 
sible date. Empire Gas & Fuel Co. 

'. Albright, 87 $.W.2d 1092, 126 Tex. 
48533 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [b] (1). 

(3) Omission or misstatement of 
date of filing of petition, as required 
by statute. Wise v. Southern Rock 
Island Plow Co., Tex.Civ.App., 85 S. 
W.2d 257 State v. Buckholts State 
Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W. 730. 

(4) Requiring appearance on a day 
subsequent to the date of the ren- 
dition of the Judgment. Moore v. 
Smith, 15 S.B.2d 48, 177 Va. 621. 

(5) Other fatal defects see 88 C- 
J. p 1090 note 67 [bj. 

15. Mich. Rood v. McDonald, 7 N. 
W.2d 95, <303 Mich. 634. 

o. Weaver v. Woodling, 272 S.W* ' 
373, 220 Mo.App. 970. 

16. Tenru Corpus Juris cited in 
Hunter v. May, 25 S.W.2d 580, 581, 
161 Tenn. 155. 

17- Iowa, Swan v. McGowan, 231 
N.W. 440, 212 Iowa 631. 

Minn. Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 
11 N.W.2d 800,. 216 Minn. 60. 

N.C. Nail v. McConnell, 190 S.B. 
210, 211 N.C. 258. 

Oti. Texas Title Guaranty Co. Y- 
Mardis, 98 P.2d 598, 186 Okl. 433. 

Tex. Rhoads v. Daly General Agen- 
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461 
Weaver v. Garrietty, Civ.App., 84 
S.W.2d 878. 

33 C.J. P 1091 note 6834 C.J. p 534 
note 43. 

As not subject to collateral attack 
see infra 422. 



24 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



ticularly where defendant has waived such defects 
in the process.** Although there is also authority 
to the contrary, 1 * it has been held that the omission 
of a proper seal from the process, or the use of an 
improper seal, merely renders the judgment defec- 
tive, and not void, 20 particularly where service has 
teen accepted and defendant has voluntarily ap- 
peared. 21 

Designation of parties. Process which is radical- 
ly defective with respect to the designation of the 
names of the parties,** either plaintiff** or defend- 
ant, 24 will not support a judgment. On the other 
hand, the validity of the judgment is not affected 
by an inaccuracy in the designation of a party in 



Opening and vacating Judgment for 
defects in process see infra S 267. 
The object of "smnanons" is to 
apprise defendant that plaintiff 
seeks judgment against defendant, 
and, when defendant is apprised of 
such fact and summons does not so 
far vary from the statutory form 
as to deprive defendant of any sub- 
stantial right the court acauires ju- 
risdiction to render judgment, 
Barth v. Owens, 35 N.T.S.2d 632, 178 
Misc. 628. 
Errors or defects not fatal 

(1) As to return day. 

Ark. United Order of Good Samar- 
itans v. Brooks. 270 S.W. 955, 168 
Ark. 570. 

Okl. Jones v. Standard Lumber Co., 
249 P. 343, 121 Okl. 186. 

33 C.J. p 1091 note 68 [b]. 

(2) Erroneous direction to wrong 
sheriff, who by indorsement on sum- 
mons appointed sheriff to whom It 
should have been directed, and was 
properly served by latter sheriff. 
Whiteker v. First Nat Bank, 231 P. 
691, 32 Wyo. 288. 

(3) Misnaming the county seat of 
county in which action was filed. 
Tyler Boat Works v. Schreiner, 153 
P.2d 1004, 194 Okl. 601. 

(4) Other errors or defects not 
fatal see 33 C.J. P 1091 note 68 [a]. 
Mutilation of record 

Where summons was properly ls- 
.sued and served and made returna- 
'ble to a term subsequent to the 
service, the unauthorized act of some 
one after final judgment in mutilat- 
ing the record so as to indicate that 
It was returnable to a prior term, 
could not deprive the court of juris- 
diction or render the judgment in- 
valid. Henneke v. Strack, Mo.App., 
101 S.W.2d 74*. 
13. N.C. Moseley v. Deans, 24 S.B. 

2d 630, 222 N.C. 781. 
General appearance as waiver of de- 
fects In process see Appearances S 
17. 

Time for objections for defects in 
process, and waiver or cure there- 



the process if the real party intended is not misled 
thereby. 25 With regard to misnomer, it has been 
held that if process is really served on the person 
intended to be sued, although a wrong name is given 
him in the writ and return, and he suffers a de- 
fault, or omits to plead the misnomer in abatement 
he is bound by the judgment rendered against him. 2 6 
A similar rule applies in the case of a misnomer of 
plaintiff. 27 

h. Defective Service 

A judgment bashed on a service of process which 
is so defective as to amount to no service at all, has 
been held void. If, however, the service, although de- 
fective, Is sufficient to give the defendant notice of the 

Baker, Bccles & Co., 173 S.W. 109, 
162 Ky. 683, L.B.A.1917C 171 War- 
rick v. McCormick, 150 S.W. 1027, 
150 Ky. 800. 

25. Okl. Glenn v. Prentice, 12 P.2d 

170, 158 Okl. 73. 
Tex. Gillette Motor Transport Co. 

v. Whitfield, Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 

290 Belknap Hardware & Mfg. 

Co. v. Ughtfoot, Civ.App., 75 S.W. 

2d 481 Beaumont, S. Lu & W. R. 

Co. v. Daniel, Civ.App., 186 S.W. 

383. 

Designating- defendant toy trade, 
name rather than real name. 
Belknap Hardware & Mfg. Co. v. 
Lightfoot, 75 S.W.2d 481. 



of, see the C.J.S. title Process 
113, also 50 C.J. P 595 note 50- 
p 599 -note 4. 

19. Ark. Woolford v. Dugan, 2 
Ark. 131. 

Tex. Line v. Cranfall, Civ.App., 37 
S.W. 184. 

33 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [c]. 

20. Ark. Oliver v. Routh, 184 S.W. 
84'3, 123 Ark. 189 Rudd v. Thomp- 
son, 22 Ark. 363. 

BTa. Benedict v. W. T. Hadlow Co., 
42 So. 239, 52 Fla. 188. 

Tex. Rhoads v. Daly General Agen- 
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461. 

34 C.J. P 534 note 43 [f]. 

21. N.C. Moseley v. Deans, 24 S.B. 
2d 630, 222 N.C. 731. 

22. Tex. Delaware Western Constr. 
Co. v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat 
Bank of Gilmer, 77 S.W. 628, 33 
TeX.Civ.App. 658. 

33 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [e]. 

Designation of parties in process 
generally see the C.J.S. title Proc- 
ess 15, also 50 C.J. p 458 note 36 
-p 459 note 49. 

23. Fla. Western Union Telegraph 
Co. v. Hiscock, 96 So. 407, 85 Fla. 
480. 

N.Y. Durst v. Ernst, 91 N.T.S. 13, 

45 Misc. 627. 
SS C.J. P 1090 note 67 [gL 



24. Mass. F. H. Hill & Co. v. Doe, 

189 N.B. 583, 286 Mass. 187. 
Tex. Maier v. Davis, Civ.App., 72 

S.W.2d 308. 
W.Va. New Eagle Gas Coal Co. v. 

Burgess, 111 S.E. 508, 90 W.Va, 

541. 
33 C.J. P 1090 note 67 [f], [h], [13. 

p 1092 note 72 [a]. 

Warning order 

An affidavit for a warning order 
in a verified petition, alleging that 
defendant was a nonresident and giv- 
ing his postoffice address, but not al- 
leging a belief that he was then 
absent from the state, does not war- 
rant the issuance of a warning or- 
der, and a judgment rendered there- 
on is void. Leonard v. Williams, 265 
S.W. 618, 205 Ky. 218 Baker v. 

62 



26. Colo. Van Buren v. Posteraro, 
102 P. 1067, 45 Colo. 588, 132 Am. 
S.R. 199. 
111. Feld v. Loftis, 88 N.E. 281, 240 

111. 105. 
Mo. Kronski v. Missouri Pac. R. 

Co., 77 Mo. 362. 
Neb. Jones v. Union Pac. R. Co., 

120 N.W. 946, 84 Neb. 121. 
N.Y. Morison v. Laing, 117 N.T.S. 

416, 132 App.Div. 689. 
Tex. Adams v. Consolidated Under- 
writers, 124 S.W.2d 840, 133 Tex. 
26 Abilene Telephone & Tele- 
graph Co. v. Williams, 229 S.W. 
847, 111 Tex, 102 McGhee v. Ro- 
matka, 45 S.W. 552, 92 Tex. 38 
Maier v.- Davis, Civ.App., 72 S.W. 
2d 308. 
33 C.J. p 1092 note 72. 

Xa future litigation, defendant may 
be connected with the judgment by 
proper averments, which, when made 
and proved, conclude such person to 
the same extent as though he had 
been named and served in his true 
name. 

Neb. Jones v. Union Pac. R. Co., 
120 NJW. 946, 84 Neb. 121. 
x. Adams v. Consolidated Under- 
writers, 124 S.W.2d 840, 133 Tex. 
26. 

27. Mass. U, S. National Bank v. 
Venner, 52 N.E. 543, 172 Mass. 449. 
33 C.J. p 1092 note 73. 



49 O.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



2* 



action or proceeding, a Judgment bated thereon has been 
held merely voidable. 

Where the service of process on a defendant is 
so defective as to amount to no service at all, a 
judgment based thereon has been held to be void, 28 
notwithstanding he had knowledge of the suit 29 A 
judgment against defendant is void, in the absence 
of appearance, where it is based on the service of 
process on another than defendant, the person 
named in the process, 80 although the person served 
bears the same name. 31 A judgment has also been 
held void where the service of process on a non- 
resident, within the jurisdiction of the court, was 
obtained by fraud, as where he was induced by 
fraud to come within the jurisdiction of the court, 
where he was .served with process. 82 A judgment 
is also void where process directed to the sheriff 
of one county was served by the sheriff of another 
county. 88 

A defective service, however, may be sufficient to 



constitute legal notice and support a judgment. 8 * 
If the service is merely irregular, but actually gives 
defendant notice of the action or proceeding, a 
judgment based thereon has been held not void, 
but at most merely voidable, 85 as where there is a 
mere defect or irregularity as to the time of serv- 
ice 86 or in failing to serve a copy of the com- 
plaint; 87 and, moreover, the judgment is 'not even 
voidable if the defect or irregularity has been 
waived. 88 

Substituted or constructive service. In accord- 
ance with the rule requiring the statutory provi- 
sions relating to substituted or constructive service- 
of process to be strictly applied, unless defendant 
has appeared or pleaded in the case 89 a judgment 
has been held void where it is based on substituted 
or constructive service, or service by publication, 
which is not mads in strict compliance with the 
essential statutory requirements relating thereto, 4(> 
provided, under some statutes, the failure to com- 



28. Fla. State ex reL Gore v. Chil- 
lingworth, 171 So. 649, 126 Fla, 
645. 

Ga. Rhodes v. Southern Flour & 

Grain Co., 163 S.E. 237, 45 Ga.App. 

13. 

111. Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Cham- 
bers, 53 N.E.2d 294, 321 Jll.App. 

629. 
La. Fullilove v. Central State Bank, 

107 So. 590, 160 La. 831 Quinn v. 

O'Neil, 121 So. 377, 10 La.App. 121. 
Mo. Coerver v. Crescent Lead & 

Zinc Corporation, 286 S.W. 3, 315 

Mo. 276. 
33 C.J. p 1092 note 7634 C.J. p 685 

note 47. 
Opening- or vacating Judgment for 

defective service see infra 267. 
Defects of service held fatal 

(1) Service by deputy sheriff be- 
yond territorial confines of his own 
parish. Adams v. Citizens' Bank, 
1*6 So. 107, 17 La.App. 422. 

(2) Service on nonresident suitors 
and witnesses in attendance on trial 
and immune from process. North- 
western Casualty & Surety Co. v. 
Conaway, 230 N.W. 548, 210 Iowa 
126, 68 A.L.R. 1465. 

(3) Other fatal defects and irreg- 
ularities of service see 83 C.J. p 1093 
note 77. 

Judgment merely voidable 

It has been held that a judgment 
of a court of general jurisdiction 
is merely voidable, where service 
has not been obtained in the re- 
quired manner, or defendant has 
been denied day in court by lack of 
proper service. Lynch v. Collins, 
233 P. 709, 106 Okl. 133. 

29. 111. Sunbeam Heating Co. v. 
. Chambers, 53 NJS3.2d 294, 321 111. 

App. 629. 



Ohio. Haley v. Hanna, 112 NJB. 149, 
93 Ohio St. 49. 

30. U.S. Elliott v. Holmes, C.C.I11., 
8 F.Cas.No.4,392, 1 McLean 466. 

Cal. Adams & Co. v. Town, 3 Cal. 

247. 
Tex. Barnett v. Tayler, 30 Tex. 453 

Booth v. Holmes, 2 TexUnrep. 

Gas. 232. 

31. Tex. State Mortgage Corpora- 
tion v. Traylor, 36 S.W.2d 440, 
120 Tex. 148. 

32. U.S. Wyman v. Newhouse. C.C. 
A.N.Y., 93 F.2d 313, 115 A.L.R. 
460, certiorari denied 58 S.Ct 831, 
303 U.S. 664, 82 LJSd. 1122. 

Iowa, Miller v. Acme Feed, 293 N. 
W. 637, 228 Iowa 861. 

33. Ga, W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. 
Greenway, 26 S.E.2d 458, 69 Ga. 
App. 590 Strauss v. Owens, 65 S. 
E. 161, 6 Ga.App. 415. 

Ky. Foster v. Hill, 138 S.W.2d 495. 

282 Ky. -327. 
Tex. Hitt v. Bell, Civ.App., Ill S. 

W.2d 1164. 

34. Tenn. Hunter v. May, 25 S.W. 
2d 580, 161 Texm. 155. 

35. Fla. State ex rel. Gore v. Chil- 
llngworth, 171 So. 649, 126 Fla. 
645 Voorhies v. Barnsley, 156 So. 
234, 116 Fla, 191 Walker v. Car- 
ver, 112 So. 45, 93 Fla. 337. 

Ky. Ely v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co., 

49 S.W.2d 1021, 243 Ky. 725. 
Miss. Mclntosh v. Munson Road 

Machinery Co., 145 So. 731, 167 

Miss. 546. 
Neb. Campbell 'Printing Press & 

Mfg. Co. v. Marder, Luse & Co., 

69 N.W. 774, 50 Neb. 283, 61 Am. 

S.R. 573. 
Va. Wood v. Kane, 129 SJS. 327, 

143 Va. 281. 

63 



Wash. Atwood v. McGrath, 242 P. 

648, 137 Wash. 400. 
33 C.J. p 1092 note 76, p 1093 note- 

78. 
Collateral attack see infra 422. 

36. N.C. Nail v. McConnell, 190 S. 
B. 210. 211 N.C. 258. 

Okl. Goldsmith v. Owens, 68 P.2A 

849, 180 Okl. 268. 
Tex. Florence v. Swails, CIvJLpp., 

85 S.W.2d 257. 

33 C.J. p 1093 note 78 [a], 

37. Wash. Munch v. McLaren, 38- 
P. 205, 9 Wash. 676. 

34 C.J. p 534 note 44 [dj. 

38. Fla. Voorhies v. Bamsley, 15 
So. 234, 116 Fla. 191. 

General appearance as waiver of de- 
fects in service of process see Ap- 
pearances 17. 

Waiver of defects in service of proc- 
ess generally see the C.J.S. title- 
Process 113, also 50 C.J. p 59$ 
note 59-p 599 note 11. 

39. Fla. McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d. 
788 United Brotherhood of Car- 
penters and Joiners of America v. 
Graves lav. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153: 
Fla. 529. 

Kan. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. 
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 42" 
P.2d 566, 141 Kan. 675. 

40. U.S. Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor- 
poration v. Warfield Natural Gas. 
Co., <XC.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, cer- 
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U. 
S. 800, 88 L.Ed 483, rehearing de- 
nied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803;. 
88 L.Ed. 1089. 

Fla. >McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d 78& 
United Brotherhood of Carpen- 
ters and Joiners of America v.. 
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 1.5$ 
Fla. 529 Klinger v. Milton Hold- 
ing Co., 186 So. 526, 136 Fla. 50 



24 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



ply with the statute appears on the face of the rec- 
ord or judgment roll. 41 A judgment based on serv- 
ice by publication has been held void where the 
requirements of the statute were not complied with, 
with respect to the time of publication of the proc- 
ess, 42 or with respect to the affidavit for the or- 
der of publication, 48 or with respect to posting or 



mailing a copy of the summons, complaint, and or- 
der to defendant. 44 However, the mere fact that 
the affidavit is defective in the method of stating 
the facts, or in the degree of proof, has been held 
to make a judgment based thereon merely void- 
able. 45 



Stern v. Raymond, 116 So. $. 95 
Fla, 410. 

111. Martin V. Schillo, 60 N.E.2d 392, 
389 111. 607, certiorarl denied 65 
S.Ct 1572, 325 U.S. 880, 89 L.Ed. 
1996. 

Kan. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. 
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 42 P. 
2d 566, 141 Kan. 675. 

La. Richardson v. Trustees' Loan & 
Guaranty Co., 132 So. (387, 15 La. 
App. 645. 

Mo. Davison v. Arne, 155 S.W.2d 
155, 348 Mo. 790 Dent v. Invest- 
ors* Sec. Ass'n, 254 S.W. 1080, 300 
Mo. 552 Williams v. Luecke, App., 
152 S.W,2d 991 Haake v. Union 
Bank & Trust Co., App., 54 S.W. 
2d 459. 

N.C. Guerin v. Guerin, 181 S.E. 274, 
208 N.C. 457. 

Okl. Locke v. Gilbert, 271 P. 247, 
133 Okl. 93 Dow v. Cowley-Frye 
Lumber Co., 247 P. 1109, 119 Okl. 
60. 

Or. Okanogan State Bank of River- 
side, Wash. v. Thompson, 211 P. 
933, 106 Or. 447. 

Tex. Smith v. Commercial Credit 
Corp., Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 360, 
reversed on other grounds Com- 
mercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187 
S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex. 612 Perez 
v. B. P. Lipscomb & Co., Civ.App. 
267 S.W. 748. 

33 C.J. p 1093 note 80. 

Strict compliance with statute as 
to substituted service or service 
by publication generally see the 
C.J.S. title Process 43, 55, also 
50 C.J. p 490 note 77-p 491 note 
81, p 497 note 17-p 498 note 28. 

Tender wcoastita,tional statute 

Service of summons on alleged 
resident agent of nonresident indi- 
vidual would not warrant rendition 
of judgment against the individual 
as such, where the statute author- 
izing service on agent of nonresi- 
dent individuals engaged to business 
within the state is unconstitutional. 
-Clones v. Fuller, 134 S.W.2d 240, 
280 Ky. 671. 

Defects held fatal 

(1) Service by publication when 
defendants were residents of state 
at date of service and their resi- 
dence known to plaintiff. 'Perez v. 
B. P. Lipscomb & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 
267 S.W. 748. 

(2) Service by publication tinder 
order not based on affidavit for at- 
tachment, stating- that defendant 
was nonresident* but solely on alle- 



gation or finding that she could not 
be summoned. Haake v. Union Bank 
& Trust Co., MO.APP., 54 S.W.2d 
459. 

(3) Leaving: summons at place 
which was not defendant's last and 
usual place o abode. P. H. Hill 
Co. v. Doe, 1-89 N.B. 588, 286 Mass. 
187. 

(4) Leaving citation at house in 
which nonresident defendant had 
resided, but which was no longer 
his domicile. Williams & Miller v. 
Jones, La.App., 180 So. 140. 

(5) Service by mail. Estok v. Bs- 
tok, 157 A. 356, 102 Pa.Super, 604 
Skrynski v. Zeroka, 98 PaJSuper. 469. 

(6) Service on one not living at 
defendant's domicile. Richardson v. 
Trustees 1 Loan & Guaranty Co., 132 
So. 387, 15 La.App. 645. 

(7) Service on director of corpo- 
ration Instead of on person named 
in statute. State v. District Court 
of Seventh Judicial Dist, in and for 
Mineral County, 273 P. 659, 51 Nev. 
206, followed in 273 P. 661, 51 Nev. 
214, and rehearing- denied 275 P. 1, 
51 Nev. 3SO. 

(8) Service on agent or attorney 
of a nonresident defendant 

Ala. Woodfln v. Curry, 153 So. 620, 

228 Ala. 436. 
Ky. -Jones v. Puller, 184 S.W.2d 240, 

280 Ky. 671. 
S.C. Matheson v. McCormac, 195 S. 

B. 122, 186 S.C. 93. 

(9) Other defects see 33 C.J. p 
1093 note 80 [a]. 

41. U.S. Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor- 
poration v. Warfleld Natural Gas 
Co., CXJJLKy., 137 P.2d 871, cer- 
tiorari denied 64 'S.Ct 431, 320 U. 
S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing de- 
nied 64 S.Ot 634, 321 U.S. 803, 
88 L.Ed. 1089. 

Okl. Locke v. Gilbert, 271 P. 247. 
133 Okl. 93. 

42. Ariz. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of 
Maryland v.. Meldrum, 50 P.2d 570, 
46 Ariz. 295. 

Tex. Mitchell v. Reitz, Civ.App., 269 
S.W. 279. 

43. U.S. Butler v. McKey, C.OA. 
CaL, 138 P.2d 373, certiorari de- 
nied 64 S.Ct 636. 321 U.S. 780, 
88 L.Ed. 1073. 

Colo. Federal Farm Mortg. Corpo- 
ration v. Schmidt, 126 P.2d 1086. 
109 Colo. 467. 

Okl. Robins y. Lincoln Terrace 
Christian Church, 75 *P.2d 874. 181 

64 



Okl. 615 Morgan v. Stevens, 22S 

P. 365, 101 Okl. 116. 
Or. Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d 

568, 161 Or. 295. 
S.C. Ray v. Pilot Fire Ins. Co.. 121 

S.B. 779, 128 S.C. 323. 
34 C.J. p 536 note 61. 

Validity of Judgment rendered on 
citation by publication depends, not 
on fact that an affidavit in proper 
form was filed, but rather on truth 
of grounds set up as basis for Is- 
suance and service of citation by 
publication. Smith v. Commercial 
Credit Corp., Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 
360, reversed on other grounds Com- 
mercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187 S. 
W.2d 363, 143 Tex. 612. 
Affidavits held fatally defective 

(1) Affidavit based on hearsay 
that defendant cannot be found 
within state or conceals himself to 
avoid service of summons. Butler 
v. McKey, C.C.A.CaL, 138 F.2d 373, 
certiorari denied 64 S.Ct 636. 921 
U.'S. 780, 88 L.Bd. 1073. 

(2) Other affidavits see 33 OJ. p 
1093 note 80 [b]. 

44. N.Y. B. Berman, Inc. v. Amer- 
ican Fruit Distributing Co., 186 
N.T.S. 376, 114 Misc. 345, 

33 C.J. p 14)93 note 80 Cc]. 

45. U.S. Thompson v. Thompson, 
App-D.C., 33 S.Ct 129, 226 U.S. 551. 
57 L.Ed. 347. 

Neb. Atkins v. Atkins, 2 N.W. 466, 

9 Neb. 191. 

N.Y. Smith v. R. B. t Bldg. Cor- 
poration, 215 N.T.S. 1, 126 MlfiKS. 

826. 
Okl. Frost v. Bavis, 79 P.2d 800, 

182 Okl. 593. . 
Utah. Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake 

Inv. Co., 134 P. 603, 43 Utah 181. 
33 C.J. P 1091 note 68 [i], p 1093 

note 80 [b] (9) 34 C.J. p 536 

notes 53, 59. 
Improvidently made 

The fact that (affidavit supporting 
request for issuance of citation by 
publication on ground that defend- 
ant's residence was unknown had 
been improvidently made, if estab- 
lished, would not render Judgment 
in the proceedings void. Commer- 
cial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187 S.W. 
2d 863, 143 Tex. &L2. 
"WHeseabouts" Instead of "resi- 
dence" 

The use of the word "where- 
abouts" in an affidavit for service J>y 
publication which states that th,e 
"whereabouts" of defendant U TO- 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



26 



25. Return and Proof of Service 

A valid judgment ordinarfty may fee rendered only 
where due service of process is shown by a return or 
other proof. 

Although the validity of a judgment rests on the 
service of process rather than on the return, which 
is simply evidence in respect of the process, 46 a 
proper return, showing that process has been duly 
served, is ordinarily necessary in order that a valid 
judgment may be rendered. 47 Accordingly a judg- 
ment has been held void where the return or other 
proof is so faulty or defective as not to show a le- 
gal service of process, 48 although mere irregulari- 
ties in the return or proof will not vitiate the judg- 
ment. 49 If the nonservice of process appears on 
the face of the papers or is discernible from an in- 
spection of the record, the judgment may be treated 



as a nullity, 50 and it has been held that the judgment 
is void whether such lack of jurisdiction appears 
on the face of the record or is shown aliunde. 51 

26. Appearance 

A judgment bas?d on the voluntary general appear- 
ance by or on behalf of the defendant is valid. 

A voluntary general appearance in an action is 
a. waiver of a want of process, or of any defects 
in the process or its service, or return, and gives 
the court full jurisdiction over his person, as dis- 
cussed in Appearances 17, and accordingly, al- 
though a defendant has not received any notice, or 
proper process or service thereof, a judgment in 
personam against him is valid and binding if a 
general appearance has been entered by him or on 
his behalf. 52 However, a judgment in personam 



known, Instead of the word "resi- 
dence," which is used in the statute, 
is a mere irregularity which will not 
render an attachment judgment void. 
Fisher 'v. Jordan, C.C.A.Tex., 116 F. 
2d 183, certiorari denied Jordan v. 
Fisher, 61 S.Ct. 734, 312 U.S. 697, 85 
L.Bd. 1132. 

46. La. Adler v. Board of Levee 
Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 123 
So. 605, 168 La, 877 Dickey v. 
Pollock, App.. 183 So. 48. 

"The citation itself is the im- 
portant legal fact upon which the 
validity of the judgment rests, while 
the return is simply evidence in re- 
spect to that fact. The citation in 
a case must not be confounded with 
the sheriff's return, which recites 
his own actions in the matter of the 
service thereof. The citation may 
be good, though the return for some 
reason be irregular; while the re- 
turn may be perfect in its recitals, 
yet the citation be null." Adler v. 
Board of Levee Com'rs of Orleans 
Levee Dist., 123 So. 605, 606, 168 La. 
877. 

47. Chau Elliott v. Porch, 200 S.E. 
ISO, 59 Ga.App. 181 Benton v. 
Maddox, 192 S.E. 316, 56 Ga.App. 
132. 

Miss. Ex parte Latham, 136 So. 625, 

1C1 Miss. 243. 
Tex. Wagner v. Urban, Civ.App., 

170 S.W.2d 270. 
33 C.J. p 1094 note 83. 

In absence of return of service, 
there is nothing to show, in support 
of Judgment, that court had juris- 
diction, since court should not pro- 
ceed in absence of service. Benton 
v. Maddox, 192 S.E. 316, 6 Ga.App. 
132. 

Judgment is valid on f ace, where 
return of service is made in manner 
required by law. Hanna v. Allen, 
279 P. 1098, 153 Wash. 485. 

48. Colo. Gibbs v. Slevin, 212 P. 
826. 72 Colo. 690. 



Tex. Remington-Rand Business 

Service v. Angelo Printing Co., 

Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 1098. 
Wash. Title & Trust Co. v. Colum- 
bia Basin Land Co., 238 P. 992, 

136 Wash. 63. 
33 C.J. p 1094 note 84. 
As invalidating default judgment 

see infra 192. 

A deputy sheriff's individual re- 
turn to a writ of summons directed 
to his superior, is void, and a judg- 
ment predicated thereon is likewise 
null and void. Stuckert v. Thomp- 
son, 164 S.W. 692, 181 Mo.App. 518. 
Inability to find citation 

Proof that attorney was unable 
to find original citation in clerk's of- 
fice insufficiently supported allega- 
tion that judgment was void for 
want of legal citation. Thompson- 
Ritchie Grocery Co. v. Gary, 135 So. 
707, 17 La.App. 270. 
Publication 

Nonresident defendants, whose 
post office addresses were not shown 
by proof of publication of notices 
to them, were not in court, which 
had no power to render judgment 
or apply testimony against them. 
Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492, 168 
Miss. 682. 
Substituted service 

A return of process disclosing 
substituted service is insufficient to 
confer jurisdiction over person of 
defendant unless return affirmative- 
ly shows, under strict construction 
and unaided by reference to statute, 
compliance with all essential re- 
quirements of statute authorizing 
such service. * 

Mo. Crabtree v. ^2tna Life Ins. Co., 

Ill S.W.2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173 

State ex rel. Adler v. Ossing, 79 

S.W.2d 255, SS6 Mo. 391. 
Va. Washburn v. Angle Hardware 

Co., 132 S.E. 810, 144 Va. 508. 

49. Fla. Walker v. Carver, 112 So. 
45, 93 Via. 337. 

65 



Ky. Commonwealth ex rel. Love v. 

Reynolds, 146 S.W.2d 41, 284 Ky. 

809. 
La. Adler v. Board of Levee Com'rs 

of Orleans Levee Dist., 123 So. 605, 

168 La. 877. 
Mo. McEwen v. Sterling State 

Bank, 5 S.W,2d 702, 222 Mo.App. 

660. 
Ohio. Paulin v. Sparrow, 110 N.E. 

528, 91 Ohio St. 279. 
Pa. Podol v. Shevlin, 130 A. 264, 

284 Pa. 32 Wood v. Kuhn, Com. 

PI., 22 Brie Co. 236. 
33 C.J. p 1095 note 85. 

A ruling- of the court that the 
service was valid, even though the 
ruling was erroneous, does not show 
that the court was without jurisdic- 
tion to proceed since it did not ap- 
pear that service was not waived. 
Pratt v. Rosa Jarmulowsky Co., 170 
S.E. 365, 177 Ga. 522. 
Irregularities not affecting- judg- 
ment 

(1) Failure to file affidavit of 
mailing notice to defendant served 
by publication, prior to rendition of 
Judgment. Young v. Campbell. 16 
P.2d 65, 160 Okl. 265. 

(2) Failure to file proof of serv- 
ice on defendant outside state until 
entry of judgment Winter v. Win- 
ter, 175 N.E. 533. 256 N.T. 113. - 

(3) Failure to show competency 
of process server. State v. Fergus 
County Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 179 
P. 831, 55 Mont. 602. 

(4) Other irregularities see 33 C. 
J. p 1091 note 68 [f]. 

50. N.C. Dunn v. Wilson, 187 S.E. 
802, 210 N.C. 493 Graves v. Relds- 
ville Lodge No. 2128, 109 S.E. 29. 
182 N.C. 530. 

51. Tex. Olton State Bank v. How- 
ell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 2*7. 

52. U.S. In re Gayle, C.C.A.Canal 
Zone, 1*36 F.2d 973, petition dis- 
missed 64 S.C. 157, 320 U.S. 806, 
88 L-Ed. 4*7. 



26 



JUDGMENTS 



49 O.J.S. 



against defendant is not validated by his special ap- 
pearance for the purpose of objecting to the juris- 
diction of the court by taking advantage of a fail- 
ure of notice or defective service, 63 or for some 
other special purpose. 54 

By attorney. An appearance for defendant by 
his authorized attorney is sufficient to support a 
judgment against defendant. 65 If, however, the 
appearance was in fact unauthorized, a judgment 
based thereon has been held voidable, 56 and accord- 
ing to some decisions the judgment is wholly void 57 
and subject to collateral attack, as discussed infra 
424. It has been held that a judgment rendered 



on the appearance of an attorney, who has acted 
without authority, is regular and valid, 58 the sole 
remedy being an action for damages against the 
attorney, as discussed in Attorney and Client 147. 
If there was due service of process sufficient to 
support the judgment, as discussed supra 24, the 
validity of the judgment is not affected by lack of 
authority of the attorney who appeared and made 
defense. 5 ** 

Appearance by plaintiff. As a rule, if plaintiff 
fails or refuses to appear and present his case, the 
court may dismiss the action for want of prosecu- 
tion, as explained in Dismissal and Nonsuit 65 a, 



Ala. Morrison v. Covington, 100 So. 
124, 211 Ala. 181. 

Ariz. Lore v. Citizens Bank of Win- 
slow, 75 P.2d 371, 51 Ariz. 191 
Blair v. Blair, 62 P.2d 1821, 48 
Ariz. 501. 

Cal. -Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203 
Cat 306. 

Ga. Cherry v. McCutchen, 23 S.E.2d 
587, 68 Ga.App. 682. 

Hawaii. Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi- 
yama, 33 Hawaii 545. 

Ind. -Montgomery v. .Marks, 46 N.E. 
2d 912, 221 Ind. 223 Celi-na Mut 
Casualty Co. v. Baldridge, 12 N.E. 
2d 258, 213 Ind. 198. 

Ky.-^Tones v. Fuller, 134 'S.W.2d 240, 
280 'Ky. 671 Black v. Elkhorn 
Coal Corporation, 26 iS.W.2d 481. 
233 Ky. 588. 

La. Nolan v. Schultze, 126 So. 513, 
169 La. 1022 Gferfin v. Brown, 107 
So. 576, 160 La. 790. 

Md. Piedmont-Mt. Airy Guano Co. 
of Baltimore v. Merritt, 140 A. 62, 
154 Md. 226. 

Mont. Novack v. Pericich, 300 P. 
240, 90 Mont. 91. 

N.Y. Bauman Rubber Co. v. Karl 
Light & Sons, 244 N.Y.S. 448, 137 
Misc. 258. 

N.C. Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.E.2d 
26, 224 N.C, 67 City of Monroe 
v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d '311, 221 N.C. 
362 Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d 
429, 219 N.C. 465 Dunn v. Wilson, 
187 S.E. 802, 210 N.C. 493 Hood 
v. Holding, 171 S.E. 633, 205 N.C. 
451. 

N.D. Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 
794, 70 NJD. 261. 

Okl. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
Excise Board of Oklahoma County, 
33 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428 Protest 
of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 
2 P.2d 935, 161 Okl. 129 Skipper 
v. Baer, 277 -P. 930, 136 Okl. 286. 

Or. (Mt. Vernon Nat. Bank v, Morse, 
264 P. 439, 128 Or. 64. 

Pa. In re Komara's Estate, 166 A. 
577, 311 Pa. 135 In re Gallagher's 
Estate, 167 A. 476, 109 Pa. Super. 
304. 

R.I. Corpus Juris died la 'Sahagian 
v. Sahagian, 137 A, 221, 222, 48 
R.I. 267. i 



Tenn. Dicfcson v. Simpson, 113 S.W. 

2d 1190, 172 Tenn. 680, 116 A.L.R. 

'380 Commerce Union Bank v. 

' Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn. 

App. 451. 

Tex. Pure Oil Co. v. Reece, 78 S.W. 
2d 932, 124 Tex. 476 State Mortg. 
Corporation v. Traylor, 36 S.W.2d 
440, 120 Tex. 148 Levy v. Roper, 
256 S.W. 251, =113 Tex. 356 Eaton 
v. Husted, Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 
439, affirmed 172 S.W.2d 493, 141 
Tex. 349 Stone v. Miller, Civ.App., 
134 S.W.2d 862, error dismissed, 
judgment correct Goodman v. 
Mayer, Civ.App., 105 'S.W^d 281, 
reversed on other grounds 128 S. 
W.2d 1156, 1*33 Tex. 319 Coker v. 
Logan, Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 284, 
error refused Glass v. Kottwitz, 
Civ.App., 297 S.W. 573. 

Va. Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S. 
E. 606, 151 Va. 143 Beck v. Sem- 
ones' Adm'r, 134 S.E. 677, 145 Va. 
429. 

Wis. Saric v. Brlos, 19 N.W.2d 903, 
247 Wis. 400. 

33 C.J. p 1095 note 8934 C.J. p 533 
note 40. 

Appearance as validating judgment: 
Against nonresident see supra 

24 e. 

In action begun by: 
Attachment or garnishment see 

supra 24 f. 

Substituted or constructive serv- 
ice see supra 24 c. 

Appearance after judgment 
Where a judgment in rem has been 

rendered without the appearance of 

defendant, his appearance after 

judgment for the purpose of moving 

for a new trial does not render the 

judgment a personal one. Mayfleld 

v. Bennett, 48 Iowa 194. 

53. Md. Ortman v. Coane, 31 A.2d 
320, 181 Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388. 

Wash. State v. Plummer, 226 P. 

273, 130 Wash. 135. 
33 C.J. p 1095 note 93. 

54. Or. Cram v, Tippery, 155 P.2d 
558. 

litre physical presence by a party 
when a judgment is rendered against 
him does not make the judgment 

66 



binding on him, if he had no notice 
or opportunity to be heard. Elliott 
v. Adams, 160 S.E. 3*36, 173 Ga. 312. 

55. Mich. Hempel v. Bay Circuit 
Judge, 193 N.W. 281, 222 Mich. 
553. 

N.C. Hood v. Holdingf, 171 S.E. 633, 

205 N.C. 451. 
33 C.J. p 1096 note 94. 
Presumption of authority to appear 
see Attorney and Client 73 a. 
Where defendants' attorney was 
in open court when plaintiff request- 
ed leave to amend petition to state 
new cause of action, notwithstand- 
ing defendants subsequently with- 
drew their answer and were not cit- 
ed on filing of amended petition, 
court had jurisdiction to render 
judgment against them thereon. 
Phillips v. The Maccabees, Tex.Civ. 
App., 50 S.W.2d 478. 

56. N.T. Wiley v. Moses, 42 N.T.S. 
2d 4. 266 App.Div. 801, reargument 
and appeal denied In re Less* Es- 
tate, 44 N.T.S.2d 686, 266 App.Div. 
968. 

33 C.J. p 1096 note 95. 

Unauthorized appearance as ground 

for: 

Equitable relief see infra 354. 
Opening and vacating see infra 
267. 

57. N.D. Taylor v. Oulie, 212 N.W. 
Wl. 55 N.D. 253. 

Okl. ^Street v. Dexter, 77 P.2d 707, 
182 Okl. 360 Hatfield v. Lewis, 
236 P. 611, 110 Okl. 98. 

Tex.-^Stack v. Ellis, Civ.App., 291 
S.W. 919. 

33 C.J. p 1096 note 97. 

58. Miss. Shirling v. Scites, 41 
Miss. 644. 

33 C.J. p 1096 note 2. 

59. N.C. Hatcher v. Faison, 55 S.E. 
284, 145 N.C. 364. 

33 C.J. p 1096 note 1. 
Neither void nor voidable 

Appearance by an unemployed at- 
torney does not make a judgment 
void or -voidable, where the case 
would otherwise go to judgment 
since such attorney has no power to 
waive any rights. Lockard v. 
Whitenack, 144 S.K 606, 151 Va. 143. 



49 O.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



27 



but it can render, no judgment against plaintiff 60 
unless defendant has filed a cross action or request, 
ed affirmative relief. 61 On the other hand, if plain- 



tiff appears and answers a cross action, a judgment 
may be entered thereon, although defendant did not 
serve him with notice of the cross action, 62 



C. PARTIES 



27. In General 

Parties whose rights are determined are essential to 
a Judgment. 

An essential element, implied in all the definitions 
of a judgment which have been given, is that there 
must be parties whose rights are determined by the 
adjudication. 6 * A valid judgment cannot be ren- 
dered where there is a want of necessary parties, 64 
and a court cannot properly adjudicate matters in- 
volved in a suit when necessary and indispensable 
parties to the proceedings are not before it 65 The 
absence of persons necessary to a complete settle- 
ment of the entire controversy, however, will not 
prevent the rendition of a valid judgment where 
their interests are so separable that a judgment may 



be rendered between the parties before the court 
without affecting the rights of persons who are not 
parties. 66 A judgment which is a mere negation of 
plaintiff's asserted claim is not erroneous for want 
of necessary parties. 67 

In the case of ex parte proceedings there are par- 
ties on only one side, as discussed in Ex 32 CJ.S. 
p 1145 note 75-p 1146 note 80. In the case of pro- 
ceedings in rem, the parties on one side, at least, 
consist merely in the personification of a res, but the 
determinations in this class of cases are nevertheless 
judgments, as considered infra 907. 

To enable a judgment to be rendered the litigants 
must have the capacity to stand in judgment 68 The 



60. Tex. Parr v. Chittim, Com. 
App., 231 S.W. 1079 Dalton T. 
Davis, Civ.App., 294 S.W. 1115, 
reversed on other grounds, Com. 
App, 1 S.W.2d 571 -Scarborough 
v. Bradley, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 349. 

61* Tex. Wadell Connally Hard- 
ware Co. v. Brooks, Civ.App. t 275 
S.W. 168. 

62. Tex. Hall v. Morton, Civ.App., 
39 S.W.2d 903, error refused. 

63. Kan. Corpus Juris quoted in 
City of Independence v. Hinde- 
nach, 61 P.2d 124, 129, 144 Kan. 
414. 

M 0n t ^State v. District Court of 
Fifteenth. Judicial Dist. in and for 
Musselshell County, 300 P. 235, 89 
Mont 5-31, 82 A.L.R. 1158. 
33 C.J. P 1105 note 45. 
Amendment of judgment as to par- 
ties see infra 244. 
Conformity to: 
Pleadings and proofs as to parties 

see infra 51. 
Verdict or findings as to parties 

see infra 56. 

Designation of parties see infra 5 
75. t . 

Parties to judgment by or against 
executor or administrator see Ex- 
ecutors and Administrators 793. 
Advewary proceedings required 

Where real party in interest is 
both plaintiff and defendant, no Is- 
sue is presented and decree or judg- 
ment based on such action is null 
and void. O'Donnell v. U. S., C.C.A, 
Cal., 91 F.2d 14, reversed on other 
grounds U. S. v. O'Donnell, 58 S.Ct 
708, 303 U.S. 501, 82 Ii.Ed. 980. 
64. Tex. Belt v. Texas Co., Civ, 
App., 175 S.W.2d 622, error refused 
Beeier r. Loock, Civ-App^ 135 



S.W.2d 644, error dismissed Gen- | 

era! Exchange Ins. Corporation v. 

Collins, Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 127. 
xreoessary parties 

Grantee's heirs are necessary par- 
ties to enable court to adjudicate 
whether paper, in form a deed, is 
an absolute conveyance, or only a 
power of attorney. Wingo v. Par- 
ker, 19 S.C. 9. 

65. Fla. Fain v. Adams, 121 So. 

562, 97 Fla. 517. 
111. Hansen v. Swartz, 178 N.E. 246, 

345 111. 609. 
Mass. Dietz v. New Tork Life Ins. 

Co., 191 N.E. 875, 287 Mass. 398. 
N.Y. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 

v. Triborough Bridge Authority, 

48 N.T.S.2d 16, affirmed 59 N.Y.S. 

2d 291, 269 App.Div. 978, motion 

granted 59 N.Y.S.2d 627, 270 App. 

Div. 754. 
N.D. Underwood State Bank v. 

Weber, 193 N.W. 602, 49 N.D. 814. 
W.Va. McDonald v. Bennett, 152 S. 

E. 533, 108 W.Va. 666. 
Wis. Riedel -v. Preston, 246 N.W. 

569, 211 Wis. 149. 
Proper procedure 

The court should require the ab- 
sent persons to be made parties to 
the proceeding or dismiss it with- 
out prejudice. White v. Walker, 10 
S.W.2d 1071, 226 Ky. 326. 
Sum held by stranger 

The district court erred In includ- 
ing in amount of money judgment 
sum shown by parties' stipulation to 
be held la Judgment debtor's name 
by corporation not party to suit 
wherein judgment was rendered. 
CyMeara v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App,, 
137 S.W.2d 66, error dismissed, Judg- 
ment correct. 

67 



66. Cal. Bank of California Nat. 
Ass'n v. Superior Court in and for 
City and County of San Francisco, 
106 P.2d 879, 16 Cal.2d 516. 

Tex. State Mortg. Corporation v. 

Garden, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 212. 
Person held not a necessary party 

JSTonresidence of party claiming 
interest did not impair validity of 
decree approving release of rights 
in estate, nonresidents not being 
necessary parties to decision of 
question. Denny v. Searles, 148 S.E. 
484, 150 Va. 701. 

67. Proceeding to terminate rights 
under deed 

A judgment in an administrator's 
suit to terminate defendant's rights 
under a deed from his Intestate is 
not erroneous for want of necessary 
parties because intestate's heirs 
were not parties to the suit, where 
it is a mere negation of plaintiff's 
asserted claim. Jones v. Gibbs, 130 
S.W.2d 265, 133 Tex. 627, motion 
overruled T31 S.W.2d 957, 133 Tex. 
627. 

68. La. Roe v. Caldwell, 70 So. 
548, 138 La. 652 Miles v. Recla- 
mation Oil Producing Ass'n, 3 La. 
App. 746. 

nprisonment of defendant pending 



civil suit 
Where, pending a civil cause, de- 
fendant is arrested and confined in 
jail by virtue of a warrant issued 
for a criminal offense at the in- 
stance of a third person not in col- 
lusion with, or instigated by, plain- 
tiff, plaintiff is entitled to proceed 
with his cause to judgment, and 
such judgment will not be set aside 
as irregular. Peterson v. C. A. Mar- 



28 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



rules governing judgments with respect to persons 
under a disability are discussed in Husband and 
Wife 447-457, Infants 120-124, and Insane 
Persons 151. Also the rules applicable to judg- 
ments relative to persons whose personality is or 
has been suspended for juristic purposes are con- 
sidered in titles wherein the law relative to such 
persons is treated, such as Bankruptcy 489-491, 
Convicts 7, Insolvency 17 a (2), and Slaves 
7, also 58 CJ. p 758 note 59; and in titles dis- 
cussing particular kinds or classes of actions and 
proceedings are considered the rules particularly ap- 



plicable to parties to judgments or decrees in such 
actions or proceedings. 

28. Judgment for or against One Not a Par- 
ty 

A Judgment can be rendered only for or against a 
party to the action or proceeding and not for or agafnct 
one not a party: the rights and liabilities of persons not 
parties cannot be adjudicated. 

In general a judgment can be taken only for or 
against a party to the action or proceeding.^ It 
cannot properly be rendered for or against one who 
is not a party thereto, 70 or against one who is not 



tin Furniture Co., 86 S.B. 1099, 144 
Ga. 316. 

69. Mont. Moore v. Capital Gas 
Corp., 158 P.2d 302. 

Jurisdiction In personam as essen- 
tial to validity of judgment see 
supra 19. 

Service or process or appearance as 
essential to validity of judgment 
see supra 23, 26. 

70. U.S. Southwell v. Robertson, 
D.CPa,, 27 F.Supp. 944. 

Ark. Bryan v. Akers, 7 S.W.2d 32$, 
177 Ark. 681, 58 A.L.R. 1124. 

Cal. Hutchinson v. California Trust 
Co., Ill P.2d 401, 43 Cal.App.2d 
571 Lloyd v. Los Angeles County, 
107 P.2d .622, 41 Cal.App.2d 808 
Overell v. Overell, 64 P.2d 483, 18 
Cal.App.2d 499 Nordin v. Eagle 
Rock State Bank, App., 49 P.2d 
336 McDonald v. Richards, 248 P. 
1049, 79 CaLApp. 1. 

Colo. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. 
Co. v. Packer, 254 P. 779, 81 Colo. 
195. 

Ga. Webb & Martin v. Anderson- 
McGriff Hardware Co., 8 S.E.2d 
882, 188 Ga. 291. 

111. Schrei v. Van Alyea, 247 HL 
App. 440. 

Ind. Kist v. Coughlin, 57 N.E.2d 
586, 222 Ind. 639. 

Ky. City of Hazard v. Gay, 113 S. 
W.2d 467, 271 Ky. 818 Farmers' 
Nat. Bank v. Jones, 28 S.W.2d 787, 
234 Ky. 591, 70 A.L.R. 335 Ford 
v. Consolidated Grocery Co., 17 
S.W.2d 448, 229 Ky. 510. 

La. Succession of Arnold, 152 So. 
322, 178 La. 658 Erskine v. Gard- 
iner, 110 So. 97, 162 La, 83. 

Mich. Smith v. Switzer, 287 N.W. 
416, 290 Mich. 158. 

Neb. Clark v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661, 
139 Neb. 446 Southern Nebraska 
Power Co. v. Village of Deshler, 
264 N.W. 462, 130 Neb. 133. 

N.Y. Clark v. Seligman, 296 N.T.S. 
98, 163 Misc. 533 Quinn v. Er- 
showsky, 245 N.T.S. 398, 138 Misc. 
15. 

Ohio. Eac parte Eastman, 155 N.E. 
578, 23 Ohio App. 2T3. 

Or* Niedermeyer, Inc., v. Fehl, 83 
P.2d 960, 148 Or. 16, followed In 



Niedermeyer, Inc. v. Pacific Record 
Pub. Co., 33 P.2d 966, 147 Or. 528, 
and motion denied Niedermeyer, 
Inc., v. Fehl, 35 P.2d 477, 148 Or. 
16. 

Pa. In re McGuigan's Estate, 37 A. 
2d 717, 349 Pa. 581 Chiswell v. 
Campbell, 150 A. 90, 300 Pa, 68. 

R.I. Lawton v. Fox, 133 A. 348, 47 
R.I. 359. 

Tenn. American Nat. Bank v. Brad- 
ford, App., 188 S.W.2d 971. 

Tex. Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App., 
127 S.W.2d 559, reversed on other 
grounds Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S. 
W.2d 83, 136 Tex 215 Edwards 
v. Hatch, Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 741 
Baker v. Reed, Civ.Ap&., 54 S.W. 
2d 214 Underwood v. Jefferson 
Bank & Trust Co., Civ.App., 35 S. 
W.2d 766 Cunningham v. Koons, 
Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 761 Jessen v. 
Scott, Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 290 
Cook v. Liberty Pipe Line Co., 
Civ.App., 281 S.W. 221 Moses v. 
Chapman, Civ.App., 280 S.W. 911 
Tomerlin v. Krause, Civ.App., 
278 S.W. 501. 

W.Va. Milam v. Settle, 32 S.E.?d 
269. 

33 C.J. p 1106 note 58. 

Injunction: 

In federal court as binding on 
parties defendant and those rep- 
resented by them or subject to 
their control or in privity with 
them see Federal Courts 144 d. 
Not granted against persons not 
parties to suit see Injunctions 
214. 

Judgment in: 

Favor of partner not party to ac- 
tion see the C.J.S. title Partner- 
ship 235, also 47 C.J. p 1011 
note 15. 

Replevin not proper against one 
not party to action see the C. 
J.S. title Replevin S 242, also 54 
C.J. p 588 note 25. 

Necessity that judgment correspond 
to pleadings with respect to par- 
ties see infra 51. 

Relief against person not party not 
granted in mandamus proceeding 
see the C.J.S. title Mandamus 
341, also 38 C.J. p 926 note 12. 

68 



Opportunity to "be heard 

(1) Person must have opportunity 
of being heard before court can ren- 
der judgment against him. 

111. Hansen v. Swartz, 178 N.E. 

246, 345 111. 609. 
Mont Mitchell v. Banking Corpo- 

ration of Montana, 22 P.2d 155, 

94 Mont 183. 

(2) Notice and opportunity to be 
heard before being concluded by 
judgment as essential to due proc- 
ess of law see Constitutional Law 
569 c (2), 619, 322. 
Unauthorized proceeding 

(1) Judgment is void in action in- 
stituted in plaintiff's name by a 
stranger without authority. 

U.S. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Isa- 
bel, CC.A.OkL, 129 F.2d 111. 

Okl. Steen v. Williams, 12 P.2d 888, 
158 OkL 147. 

(2) Judgment against alleged 
ward on cross petition in proceeding 
brought by alleged guardian acting 
under wholly void court order is 
erroneous. Ruckert v. Moore, 295 S. 
W. 794, 317 Mo. 228. 

(3) Other cases see 33 C.J. p 1106 
note 58 [e], 

Judgment for plaintiff as trustee 
for one not a 'party to the action is 
erroneous. Rush v. Curtiss-Wright 
Export Corporation, 31 N.T.S,2d 550, 
263 App.Div. 69, appeal denied 32 
N.Y.S.2d 1016, 263 App.Div. 868. 
motion denied 41 N.B.2d 173, 287 
N.Y. 849. 
Xodividual sued in representative 



In suit against state superintend- 
ent of insurance, to recover a fund 
in his possession officially, in which 
the superintendent as an individual 
defendant was stricken out, the ju**. 
risdiction of the court is limited to 
the res, and it has no power to 
charge defendant with interest be- 
yond what he actually received. 
Porter v. Beha, D.C.N.Y., 8 F.2d 65, 
affirmed, C.C.A., 12 F.2d 513. 
Unknown or wuuuned parties 

Law court cannot enter judgment 
for unknown and unnamed parties, 
nor has it ancillary jurisdiction to 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



28 



subject to the jurisdiction of the court. 71 A judg- 
ment so given is void in so far as it concerns the 
person improperly included in it, 72 whether or not 
such person is sui juris or under disability, 78 and, 
according to some authorities, is a mere nullity as 
to all the parties to it, 74 although other cases hold 
that it is not void as to those who were actually 
parties to the suit. 76 A judgment for one not 
formally a party has been held proper, however, 
where the case was tried and the parties acted on 
the understanding that such person was a party. 76 
It has been held that mere service of process on a 
stranger to the proceedings will not support a judg- 
ment against him. 77 



Where he is not a party to the action, judg- 
ment cannot properly be rendered for or against an f 
assignor, 78 an employee in an arbitration proceed- 
ing between his employer and labor union, 79 an 
insurance company in an action against the state 
superintendent of insurance in whose hands it has 
been placed for liquidation, 80 an insurer of defend- 
ant, even though insurer's attorney took over the de- { 
f ense and participated in the trial as fully as though 
insurer had been a party, 81 .an officer of a defendant 
county, 82 an officer, agent, representative, or legal 
assign of a defendant corporation, 83 a party's attor- , 
ney, 8 * a witness, 86 or a member of a class. 86 How- 
ever, there is authority which holds that, in a rep- 



determine the parties entitled to the 
benefit of such a judgment Mc- 
Nary v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New 
York, D.C.Ohio. <> F.Supp. 616. 
Judgment held not in favor of one 

not? a party 

Judgment that, as between plain- 
tiff and defendant, plaintiff is liable 
for payment of note to bank is not 
a judgment against plaintiff in favor 
of the bank, which was not a party 
to the action. Nants v. Doherty, 262 
S.W. 979. 203 Ky. 596. 

71. 111. Austin v. Royal League, 
147 N.B. 106, 316 III. 188. 

N.Y. NtecAffer v. Boston & M. R. 

R., 197 N.B. 328, 268 N.T. 400. 
Ohio. Cahill v. Fidelity & Casualty 

Co., 175 N.E. 39, "37 Ohio App. 444. 
Where plaintiff not in court 

Judgment on merits cannot be ren- 
dered where action fails because no 
plaintiff is in court against whom 
judgment can be rendered. MacAf- 
fer v. Boston & M. R. R., 197 N.E. 
328, 268 N.T. 400, 

72. U.S. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. 
Isabel, C.C.A.Okl., 129 F.2d 111 
U. S. v. Lee, D.C.Okl., 48 F.Supp. 
63. 

Cal. Pennell v. Superior Court In 
and for Los Angeles County, 262 
P. 48. 87 Cal.App. 375. 

111. Newberry Library v. Board of 
Education of City of Chicago, 55 
N.B.2d 147, 387 111. 85. 

Ky. Chapman v. Blackburn, 175 
S.W.2d 26, 295 Ky. 606 Rapp 
Lumber Co. v. Smith, 48 S.W.2d 
17, 243 Ky. 317. 

Mont. Moore v. Capital Gas Corp., 
158 P.2d 302. 

N.C. Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.B.2d 
26, 224 N.C. $7 Downing v. White, 
188 S.B. 815, 211 N.C. 40. 

Tenn. Charles A. Hill & Co. v. Bel- 
mont Heights Baptist Church, 69 
<5.W.2d 612, 17 Tean.App. 603. 

Tex Shaw v. Cunningham, Civ. 
App., 42 S.W.2d 685, error refused 
Butman v. Jones, Civ.App., 24 
aw.2d 796Lipsitz v. First Nat 
Bank, CivJLpp., 288 S.W. 609, af- 
firmed, Com.App.. 293 S.W. 563, 



modified on other grounds 296 S. 
W. 490. 
W.Va. Russell v. Carpenter, 23 S.B. 

2d 920, 125 W.Va. 51. 
33 C:J. p 1106 note 58. 
Validity of judgment or decree for 
or against person not party to par- 
tition proceeding see the C.J.S, ti- 
tle Partition 112, also 47 C.J. p 
435 notes 93, 94. 
Bnle in misnomer inapplicable 

-The rule that the judgment con- 
cludes the person intended - to be 
sued where he is actually served 
with process, even under a wrong 
name, is inapplicable where judg- 
ment is rendered against a person 
not a party to the suit Gofl v. 
Will County Nat Bldg. Corporation, 
35 N.B.2d 718, 811 IlLApp. 207. 

73. Ky. Proctor v. Mitchell, 194 S. 
W.2d 177. 

74. Colo. Archuleta v. Archuleta, 
123 P. 821, 52 Colo. 601. 

33 C.J. p 1107 note 59. - 

75. Mo. Pacific Express . Co. Y. 
Bmerson, 74 S.W. 132, 101 Mo.App. 
62. 

33- C.J. p 1107 note 60. 
7ft, Wash. Bleiler v. Wolff, 161 P. 
2d 145, 23 Wash.2d 368. 

77. Ga. Shearouse v. Wolfe, 86 S. 
B. 923, 111 Ga. 859. 

33 C.J. p 1106 note 58 [b]. 

78. U.S. Illinois Surety Co. v. U. 
S., C.C., 36 S.Ct 321, 240 U.S. 214, 
60 L.Ed. 609. 

79. N.T. Steinberg v. D. L. Horo- 
witz, Inc., 25 N.Y.S.2d 630, 261 
App.Div. 1380. 

80. U.S. Southwell v. Robertson, 
D.C.Pa., 27 F.Supp. 944. 

81. Tex. Rio Grande Valley Tele- 
phone Co. v. Hocut, Civ.App., 93 
S.W.2d 167, error dismissed. 

82. Gal. Lloyd v. Los Angeles 
County, 107 P.2d 622, 41 CaLApp. 
2d 808. 

83. Tefc. Toakura Mill & Elevator 
Co. v. Byars, Civ. App., 262 5.W. 
.226. 

84. Cal. Sullivan v. Gage. 79 P. 

69 



537, 145 Cal. 770 In re Levinson's , 
Estate, 41 P. 483, 42 P. 479, 108 
Cal. 450 Overell v. Overell, 64 P. 
2d 483, 18 Cal.App.2d 499 Pennell | 
v. -Superior Court in and for Los 
Angeles County, 262 P. 48, 87 Cal. 
App. 375 Chavez v. Scully, 216 
P. 46, 62 CaLApp. 6. j 

Attorney's right to summary reme- 
dy in cause for payment of fees 
earned therein see Attorney and 
Client 194. 

85. Pa. Bell v. Feeney, Cora.PL, 59 
Montg.Co. 279. 

86. N.C. Williams v. Williams, 74 
N.C. 1. 

33C.J. pl!06 note 58 [f]. 
Judgment for member 

(1) In representative action on 
behalf of all similarly situated, only 
those named as plaintiffs and who 
enter the action before judgment 
may share in recovery. Atkins v. ; 
Trowbridge, 148 N.Y.S. 181, 162 App. 
Div. 629 Hendry v. Title Guarantee 
& Trust Co., 300 N.Y.S. 741, 165 
Misc. 349, modified on other grounds 
8 N.Y.S.2d 164, 255 App.Div. 497,' 
affirmed 21 NJB.2d 515, 280 N.Y. 740. 

(2) In class suit under Fair. La- 
bor' Standards Act by employee as 
representative of class of employees 
to which he belongs, no judgment 
could be entered in favor of any 
employee against employer for any 
specific sum of. money unless such 
employee was either a party to the 
suit, or had expressly designated 
some one to represent him. in the 
suit, or bad intervened in the suit 
Brooks v. Southern Dairies, D.C. 
Fla., 38 F.Supp. 588. 

Judgment against member 

(1) The equitable doctrine of class 
representation does not permit a 
plaintiff to designate certain par- 
ties as representatives of other nu- 
merous members of a voluntary un- 
incorporated association in order 
to obtain personal -judgments as to 
members not named. Webb & Mar- 
tin v. Anderson-McGriff Hardware 
Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 188 Ga. 291. ., 



28 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



resentative or class suit, where tihose joined as par- 
ties fairly represent those* not joined, and their in- 
terests are the same, a judgment entered as in a 
class suit will be binding on all members of the 
class.*? 

In general the rights and liabilities of persons not 
parties to the action cannot be adjudicated there- 
in,*8 since a court should not adjudicate the rights 



or liabilities of a person unless he is actually or 
constructively before it 89 Title to property of one 
not a party may not be determined, 90 or a lien es- 
tablished and. foreclosed against one not a party, 91 
or the right to the proceeds of taxes levied to pay 
bonds determined in a suit to which bondholders 
are not parties, 92 or a contract with one not a party 



(2) In bondholder's suit to enforce 
trust and alleged lien against state 
and numerous owners of lands, 
where such owners were designated 
as a class but not actually made 
parties, the court had no jurisdic- 
tion to enter decree against them 
or their lands. State v. Woodruff, 
150 So. 760, 170 Miss. 744. 

87. 111. Newberry Library v. Board 
of Education of City of Chicago, 
55 N.E.2d 147, 387 111. 85. 
Persons hound by Judgment by 

reason of privity or representation, 
although not formal parties, may be 
subjected to the judgment by rule. 
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 
Ky., 20 S.Ct 620, 177 U.S. 230, 44 L. 
Ed. 747. 

Administrators acting 1 as plaintiffs 
. Where in suit by stockholders the 
recovery was purely representative, 
it was held immaterial that certain 
of the plaintiffs held only as admin- 
istrators. 'Stearns Coal & Lumber 
Co. v. Van Winkle, C.C.A.Ky., 221 
P. 590, 137 C.C.A. 314, certiorari de- 
nied -36 SXJt 554, 241 U.S. 670, 60 
L.Ed. 1230. 

88, U;6. Dewalt v. State Farm 
Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. of 
Bloomington, 111., C.C.A.MO., 99 7. 
2d 846, certiorari denied State 
Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. of 
Bloomington, 111. v. Dewalt, 59 
S.Ct 583, 306 U.S. 644, 88 L.Ed. 
1043. 

Ala. Continental Ins. Co. of New 

York v. Rotholz, 133 So. 587. 222 

Ala. 574. 
CaL Potter v, Lawton, 5 P.2d 904, 

118 CaLApp. 558 Moakley v. Los 

Angeles Pac. Ky. Co., 277 P. 883, 

99 CaLApp. 74 O'Neil v. Ross, 277 

P. 123, 98 CaLApp. 306. 
Conn. Lunde v. Minch, 136 A. 552, 

105 Conn. 657. 
Fla. Coral Bealty Co. v. Peacock 

Holding Co., 1*38 So. 622, 103 Fla. 

916. 
Ga. Ware County v. Cason, 5 S.E.2d 

597, 61 Ga.App. 15. 
Karf. Kansas Utilities Co. v. City 

of Burlington, 44 P.2d 223, 141 

Kan. 926, appeal dismissed 56 S. 

Ct. 81, 296 U.S. 658, 80 KEO. 469. 
Mass. Bancroft v. Cook, 162 N.B. 

691, 264 Mass. 343. 
Mich. Royal Oak Tp. v. City of 

Ferndale, 15 K,W.2d 707, 309 Mich. 

458 Capitol -Savings & Loan Co. 

v. Standard Savings & Loan Ass'n 



of Detroit, Mich., 250 N.W. 309, 
264 Mich. 550 Washburn v. 
Waite, 250 N.W. 306, 264 Mich. 
557. 

Mo. Jenkins v. John Taylor Dry 
Goods Co., 179 S.W.2d 54, 352 Mo. 
660 McClure v. Wilson, App., 185 
S.W.2d 878 Hocken v. Allstate 
Ins. Co., 147 S.W.2d 182, 235 Mo. 
App. 991 Stevens v. Hurley, 279 
S.W. 723, 220 Mo.App. 1050. 

N.J. Trenton Potteries Co. v. Black- 
well, 43 A.2d 831, 137 N.J.Eq. 113 
Breitman v. Jaehnal, 132 A. 291, 
99 N.J.Eq. 243, affirmed Breitman 
v. Jaehnel, 135 A. 915, 100 N.J.Eo;. 
559. 

N.M. Scudder v. Hart, 110 P.2d 536, 
45 N.M. 76. 

N.T. Sunshine v. Marsh, 38 N.T.S. 
2d 562, 265 App.Div. 927, affirmed 
50 N.E.2d 105, 290 N.Y. 775 Nor- 
man v. General American Transp. 
Corporation, 47 N.T.S.2d 390, 181 
Misc: 233, affirmed 45 N.Y.S.2d 
929, 267 App.Div. 758. 

Ohio. National Surety Co. v. Bohn, 
182 N.E. 506, 125 Ohio St 537. 

Okl. Town of Buffalo v. Walker, 257 
P. 766, 126 Okl. -6. 

Pa.< 'Pleska v. Farley, Com.Pl., 40 
Lack.Jur. 152. 

S.C. Holt v. Calhoun, 179 S.E. 501, 
175 S.C. 481. 

S.D. Boots v. Null, 238 N.W. 307, 
59 S.D. 109. 

Tex General Exchange Ins. Cor- 
poration v. Young, Civ.App., 143 
S.W.2d 805 Sparks v. Mince, Civ. 
App., 138 S.W.2d 203 Beeler v. 
Loock, Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 644, 
error dismissed Employers' Lia- 
bility Assur. Corporation v. Neely, 
Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 836, error dis- 
missed 'Stewart v. Rockdale State 
Bank, Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 915, af- 
firmed 79 S.W.2d 116, 124 Tex. 431 
Scaly v. Scott, Civ.App., 11 S.W. 
2d 605. 

Utah. Tanner v. Provo Reservoir 
Co., 103 P.2d 134, 99 Utah 158. 

Wash. Bayha v. Public Utility Dist. 
No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, 97 
P.2d 614, 2 Washed 85 Cooney 
v. Cooney, 8 P.2d 540, 164 Wash. 
553. 

Wis. Madden Bros. v. Jacobs, 235 
N.W. 780, 204 Wis. 376. 

Adjudication in partition proceeding 
of rights of person not party 
thereto see the C.J.S. title Parti- 

70 



'tion 112, also 47 C.J. p 4*35 note 
92. 

In proceeding in: 
Admiralty see Admiralty 157. 
Equity see Equity 601. 
Judgment as binding only parties 
and privies see infra 762-821. 
Persons subject to ouster under 
judgment of ejectment see Eject- 
ment 122 e. 

Rights of persons not parties not 
determined in mandamus pro- 
ceeding see the C.J.S. title Man- 
damus 334, also 38 C.J. p 923 
note 53. 
Cannot divest rights 

When a person is not made a party 
to the suit, the court has no juris- 
diction to divest him of a vested 
right Alward v. Borah, 44 N.E.2d 
865, 381 111. 134. 
Establishment of parish boundary 

In hypothecary action involving 
land alleged by defendants to be 
situated in another parish than that 
in which suit, to which neither par- 
ish was party, was brought, decree 
cannot establish boundary between 
parishes. Commercial Bank v. 
Meaux, La.App., 158 So. 688, 

Judgment's effect on third person 
not party to the action will not be 
determined by the court rendering 
it Williams v. Pease, 43 P.2d 22, 
181 Wash. 38833 C.J. p 1106 note 
58 [a] (2). 

89. D.C. Ducker v. Butler, 104 P. 
2d 236, 70 App.D.C. 103. 

La. Collins v. Cliff Oil & Gas Co., 

App., 177 So. 120. 
Wash. Bayha v. Public Utility Dist. 

No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, 97 

P.2d 614, 2 Wash.2d 85. 

90. Gal. City of Los Angeles v. 
Knapp, 70 P.2d 643, 22 Cal.App.2d 
211. 

La. Esparros v. Vicknair, 17 So.2d 
924, 205 La. 699. 

91. Tex. Gholson v. Northside 
Chevrolet Co., Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d 
579. 

92. U.S. Boynton v. Moffat Tunnel 
Improvement Dist, C.C.A.Colo., 57 
F.2d 772, certiorari denied Moffat 
Tunnel Improvement Dist. v. 
Boynton, 53 S.Ct. 20, 287 U.S. 620, 
77 L.Ed. 638 St Louis-San Fran- 
cisco Ry. Co. v. Blake, C.C.A.Okl., 
36 F.2d 652. 

Colo. Denver Land Co. v. Moffat 
Tunnel Imp. Dist, 284 P. 339, 87 
Colo. 1. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



29 



to the action rescinded, 93 or a note or note and 
mortgage canceled as to a person who is not a 
party to the action, 94 or a lien claim released as to 
members of a class who did not join as plaintiffs in 
the proceeding, 95 or a deed set aside where all per- 
sons interested are not parties to the proceeding, 96 
or a sale of property of one not a party to the ac- 
tion ordered, 97 even though the owner is a corpo- 
ration owned by another corporation whose shares 
are in suit. 98 However, the validity of mortgage 
bonds owned by cross defendants dismissed from 
the action may be adjudicated where the plaintiff in 
the action represents cross defendants as a trustee 
of such bonds. 99 Specific performance will not be 
decreed against a person not a party to the pro- 
ceeding. 1 A judgment against a person attempted 
to be made a party by motion after the conclusion 
of the trial is erroneous. 2 

29. Death of Party 

a. In general 

b. Joint parties 

a. In General 
Ordinarily a judgment rendered subsequent to a 



party's death Is erroneous. If the party died prior to 
the commencement of the action the judgment is abso- 
lutely void, if he died subsequent to its institution the 
judgment is generally held to be voidable, but if he died 
after verdict or decision the Judgment is generally held 
toH>e valid. 

Ordinarily a judgment should not be entered for 
or against a party after his death ; 3 and if the ac- 
tion is continued or revived thereafter the judg- 
ment should be for or against his representative. 4 
A judgment for or against a person who was dead 
at the time the action was instituted is at least er- 
roneous. 5 If the defendant was dead at the time 
the action was commenced the judgment will be ab- 
solutely void; 6 and like rule has been applied where 
one named as plaintiff died before commencement of 
the action, 7 although there is other authority which 
holds that a judgment rendered in an action begun 
after plaintiff's death is not void but voidable. 8 

Where the court has acquired jurisdiction of the 
subject matter and the person during the lifetime 
of a party, the prevailing rule is that a judgment 
rendered for or against him after his death, al- 
though erroneous and liable to be set aside, is not 
void but voidable ; 9 but there is substantial author- 
ity to the effect that such a judgment is absolutely 



93. Term. Hawkins v. Byrn, 261 S. 
W. 980. 150 Term. 1. 

94. Ark. Peebles Garage v. Down- 
ey, 111 S.W.2d 454, 195 Ark. 31. 

Wis. In re Peterson's Estate, 8 N. 
W.2d 266, 242 Wis. 448. 

Want of necessary parties as pre- 
cluding: Judgment or decree of can- 
cellation see Cancellation of In- 
struments 52. 

95. Idaho. Brown v. Twin Falls 
Canal Co., 276 P. 305, 47 Idaho 
402. 

d& Conn. Delaney v. Kennaugh, 
186 A. 108, 105 Conn. 557. 

Mich. Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 N. 
W. 194, 295 Mich. 380. 

Necessary parties in action to quiet 
title see the C.J.S. title Quieting 
Title 53, also 51 C.J. p 206 note 
18-p 208 note 41. 

Validity of Judgment in action to 
quiet title where owners of land 
not parties see the C.J.S. title 
Quieting Title S 103, also 51 C.J. 
p 282 note 25. 

97. U.S. Gammon v. Ramsey, C.C. 
A.N.J., 13 F.2d 743. 

Wyo. State v. District Court of 
Ninth Judicial Dist. in and for 
Fremont County, 292 P. 897, 42 
Wyo. 214, 71 A.L.R. 993, substitu- 
tion of parties denied 1 P.2d 74, 
4-3 Wyo. 173. 

96. U.S. Gammon v. Ramsey, C.C. 
A.N.J., 18 F.2d 74"3. 

99. Tex. Fidelity Trust Co. of 
Houston v. Highland Farms Cor- 



poration, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 
1014, error dismissed. 

1. B.C. Thalis v. Wurdeman, 121 
F.2d 70, 73 APP.D.C. 322. 

Decree in proceeding for specific per- 
formance not operative as to per- 
son not party or privy to pro- 
ceeding see the C.J.S. title Specific 
Performance 168, also 58 C.J. p 
1273 notes 25-26. 

2. Tex. Rio Grande Valley Tele- 
phone Co. v. Hocut, Civ.App., 93 
S.W.2d 167, error dismissed. 

33 C.J. p 1106 note 58 [c]. 

3. N.T. In re Van Nostrand's Will, 
29 N.Y.S.2d 857, 177 Misc. 1. 

Pa. Bautsch to Use of Schlear v. 
Bubbenmoyer, Com.Pl., 32 Berks 
Co.L.J. 233. 

4. Pa. Aiken v. Use of Mayberry 
v. Mayberry, 198 A. 874, 128 Pa. 
Super. 15. 

Erroneous determination, as to per- 
son in whose name the action should 
be revived was held not to render 
judgment void. Griffin v. Proctor, 
14 So.2d 116, 244 Ala. 537. 
Failure to make substitution error 

Where parties to suit died before 
entry of decree failure to make sub- 
stitution for them was error. Smith 
v. Schmitt, 231 P. 176. 112 Or. 687. 

5. N.C. Hinkle v. Walker, 197 S.E. 
129, 213 N.C. 657. 

6. CaL Conlin v. Blanchard, 28 P. 
2d 12, 219 CaL 632 In re Parsell's 
Estate, 213 ?. 40, 190 Cal. 454, 25 
A.L.R. 1561 Jones v. Walker, 118 

71 



P.2d 299, 47 Oal.App,2d 566 Cor- 
pus Juris cited in Garrison v. 
Blanchard, 16 P.2d 273, 274, 127 
CaLApp. 616 Hogan v. Superior 
Court of California in and for 
City and County of San Francisco, 
241 P. 584, 74 CaLApp. 704. 

Conn. Corpus Juris cited in 
O'Leary v. Waterbury Title Co., 
166 A. 673, 676, 117 Conn. 39. 

HI. Corpus Juris cited in State 
Bank of Prairie du Hocher v. 
Brown, 263 IlLApp. 312, 315. 

Mo. State ex rel. Jacobs v. Trimble, 
274 S.W. 1075, 310 Mo. 150 Wicoff 
v. Moore, 257 S.W. 474. 

Tex. Bdens v. Grogan Cochran 
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 
730, error refused State Mortg. 
Corporation v. Affleck, Civ.App., 27 
S.W.2d 548, reversed on other 
grounds, Com.App., 61 S.W.2d 274. 

Va. Rennolds v. Williams, 136 S.E. 
597, 147 Va. 196. 

33 C.J. p 1108 note 69 4 C.J. p 
555 note 70. 

7. Minn. Poupore v. Stone-Ordean- 
Wells Co., 157 N.W. 648, 132 Minn. 
409. 

Pa. Lynch v. Kerns, 10 Phila. 335. 

8. W.Va. McMillan v., Hickman, 14 
S.B. 227, 85 W.Va, 705. 

33 C.J. p 1109 note 7134 C.J. p 555 
note 69. 

9. U.S. Corpus Juris cited in 
Streeter v. Chicago Title & Trust 
Co., D.C.ni., 14 F.2d 331. 

Cal. Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 1095, 
40 CaLApP<2d 417 Corpus Juris 



29 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



void, 10 even though the party died after trial. 11 If, 
however, plaintiff 12 or defendant 1 * dies after ver- 
dict or decision it is. generally held that a proper 
and valid judgment may be rendered on the verdict 
or decision. Also under statutes expressly so pro- 
viding a valid judgment may properly be entered 
in cases where a party dies after verdict, decision, 
or report, or after an accepted offer to allow judg- 
ment to be taken. 14 Although such statutes have 
been held to be in derogation of the common law, 16 
they have also been declared to be declaratory of 
the common law, which never allows a delay by 
the court to change the condition of a suit. 1 * A 
judgment rendered subsequent to the death of a 
party after verdict or decision may properly be 
entered mine pro tune as of the date of the verdict 
or decision, as considered infra 118; and in ju- 



risdictions where a judgment rendered after the 
death of a party by a court which has acquired ju- 
risdiction of the parties and subject matter is not 
void but voidable, a judgment entered as of the 
actual date when rendered, at a time subsequent to 
plaintiffs death after verdict or decision, is not 
void. 17 Under a statute authorizing a judgment 
subsequent to a party's death after verdict or de- 
cision if the court renders its opinion and directs 
judgment in plaintiff's favor prior to defendant's 
death it may, after defendant's death, order the 
findings filed nunc pro tune as of the date of the 
opinion, as considered in the CJ.S. title Trial 
645, also 64 C.J. p 1271 note 78, and enter judgment 
against decedent on such findings ; 18 or, if no find- 
ings are required because the case was submitted 
on an agreed statement of facts, the court may ren- 



oited in Garrison v. Blanchard. 16 
P.2d 273, 274, 127 Gal.App. 616 
Hogan v. -Superior Court of Cali- 
fornia in and for City and County 
of San Francisco, 241 P. 584, 74 
CaLApp. 704. 

Ky. Mosely v. Morgan, 252 S.W. 
117, 199 Ky. 845. 

Okl. Corpus Juris cited in Adams 
v. Carson, 25 P.2d 653, 657, 165 
Okl. 161. 

Pa. Klemstine v. Allen, 16 PaJ>ist 
& Co. 221. 

Tex. -Garcia v. Jones. Civ.App., 155 
S.W.2d 671, error refused. 

33 C.J. p 1107 note 68 34 C.J. p 555 
note 67. 

Effect of death of party on admiral- 
ty proceeding see Admiralty 5 97. 

10. Ala. Griffin v. Proctor, 14 So. 
2d 116, 244 Ala. 8* 7 Corpus Jtu 
ris cited in Martin v. Cothran, 200 
So. 609, 610, 240 Ala. 619 Corpus 
Juris cited in McDonald v. Wo- 
mack, 107 So. 812, 818, 214 Ala. 
309. 

La. West v. Green, 131 So. 595, 15 
La. App. 216. 

Mo. De Hatre v. Ruenpohl, 108 S. 
.W.2d 357, 341 Mo. 749, transfer- 
red, see, App., 123 S.W.2d 243*- 
Carter v. Burns, 61 S.W.2d 933, 332 
. Mo. 1128 Cole v. Farkei>Wash- 
ington Co., 207 S.W. 749, 276. Mo. 
220, -overruling State v. Riley, 118 
S.W. 647, 219 Mo. 667, and Coleman 
v. McAnulty, 16 Mo. 173, 57 Am. 
D. 229. 

N.Y. In re Hirnschall's Estate, 265 
N.Y.S, 36, 147 Misc. 897. 

33 C.J. P 1107 note 6634 C.J. p 555 
note 68. 

Abatement and revival after death 
of party see Abatement and Re- 
vival 5 114-186. 

Effect of dissolution of corporation 
on judgment for or against it see 
Corporations . 17 ! 35-1786. 

afiortrar* foreclosure 

N.J. In re Admiral Sampson Bldg. 



& Loan Ass'n of Newark, 41 A.2d 

378, 136 N.J.EQ;. 292. 
Successor in. interest 

Judgment rendered after death of 
party should not bind those suc- 
ceeding to rights of action or prop- 
erty of deceased. MacAffer v. Bos- 
ton & M. R. R., 197 N.E. 328, 268 
N.Y. 400. 

11. La. West v. Green, 131 So. 595, 
15 La~kpp. 216. 

Judgment for costs 
Kan. Jones v. Jones, 167 P.2d 634, 
161 Kan. 284. 

12. W.Va Lively v. Griffith, 99 S. 

E. 512, 84 W.Va, 393. 

33 C.J. p 1109 note 72. 

13. Or. Adams v. Perry. Ill P2d 
838, 168 Or. 132. 

33 C.J. p 1109 note 74. 

14. Cal. Fox T. Hale & Norcross 
Silver Min. Co., 41 P. 328, 108 Cal. 
478 Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 1095, 
40 Cal.App.2d 417 Copp T. Rives, 
217 P. 813, 62 CaLApp. 776. 

Mo. In re Thomasson, 159 S.W.2d 

626 Homer v. Nicholson, 56 Mo. 

220. 
N.Y. In re Taylor's Estate, 33 N.Y. 

S.2d 584, 178 Misc. 217. 
Va. Green's Ex'rs v. Smith, 132 

S.E. 839, 146 Va. 442, 44 A.L.R. 

1175. 
33 C.J. p 1109 note 7534 C.J. p 76 

note 67 [a]. 
Purpose of statute 

(1) Its purpose is to permit entry 
of judgment where merits of contro- 
versy have, in substance, been pass- 
ed on before death of party. Davis 
v. Ross, 20 N.Y.S.2d 375, 259 App. 
Div. 577, reargument denied 21 N.Y. 
S.2d 391, 259 App.Div. 1029 In .re 
Taylor's WiU, 33 N.Y.S.2d 584, 178 
Misc. 217 Nicholson v. McMullen, 
28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 176 Misc. 693. 

(2) It was never intended to al- 
low a judgment to be entered 
against deceased which could not 

72 



have been entered in his lifetime. 
Nicholson v. McMullen, supra. 
Actions to which applicable 

(1) The statute applies generally 
to all ordinary civil actions, whether 
involving equitable or legal rights. 
--State v. Stratton, 19 S.W. 803, 110 
Mo. 426. 

(2) The statute applies only to ac- 
tions not abating on death. Grotsch 
v. KGassey, 231 N.Y.S. 469, 133 Misc. 
373 J34 C.J. p 76 note 67 [a] (1), 
(3). 

Accepted offer to allow Judgment 

A judgment by default is not an 
"accepted offer to allow judgment." 
Nicholson v. McMullen, 28 N.Y.S. 
2d 287, 176 Misc. 693. 

Verdict, decision, or report held 
made i 

N.Y. Davis ,v. Ross, 20 N.Y.S.2d 
375, 259 App.Div. 577, reargument 
denied 21 N.Y.S.2d 391, 259 App. 
Div. 1029 In re Taylor's Will, 33 
N.Y.S.2d 584, 178 Misc. 217. 

Judgment held act proper 

(1) Generally. Nicholson v. Me-. 
Mullen, 28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 176 Misc. 
693. 

(2) Where facts concerning alleg- 
ed settlement were in dispute. (Mer- 
rill v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 282 N.Y. 
S. 574, 246 App.Div. 541. 

15. N.Y. -Nicholson v. McMullen, 
28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 17$ Misc. 693. 

16. Mo. Homer v. Nicholson, 6 
Mo. 220. 

S3 C.J. p 1109 note 76. 

17. Mass. Reid v. Holmes, 1*7 
Mass. 326. 

33 C.J. p 1109 note 78. 

18. Cal. Fox v. Hale & Norcross 
Silver Min. Co., 41 P. 328, 108 
CaL 478 Copp v. Rives, 217 P. 
813, 62 Gal.App. 776. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



29 



der judgment .after defendant's death where it was 
submitted prior thereto. 19 

A judgment entered nunc pro tune after the death 
of plaintiff and at a time when a substitution of 
parties for decedent had not been made has been 
held void. 20 . In some jurisdictions where defendant 
dies before judgment the court is without juris- 
diction as to him until the action is revived and his 
representatives are brought before the court, 21 and 
in other jurisdictions service of notice on all per- 
sons interested in the estate of the deceased defend- 
ant is prerequisite to a valid judgment. 22 

A judgment erroneous because rendered for or 
against a dead person may be reversed on appeal if 
that fact appears on the record. 2 ^ If such fact 
must be. shown by evidence aliunde, the remedy is 
by writ of error coram nobis, or by motion or peti- 
tion in the cause. 24 The right to impeach in a col- 
lateral proceeding a judgment rendered subsequent 
to the death of a party is considered infra 419. 

Terminated trust. A judgment cannot bestow on 
retiring trustees of a terminated testamentary trust 
continuing power to control and manage the real 
estate of the trust, 25 even though all the benefici- 
aries under the will acquiesced in or expressly con- 
sented thereto. 26 

b. Joint Parties 

Whether or not a judgment for or against Joint par- 
ties, rendered after the death of one of them, Is void or 
voidable depends on the rule followed In the particular 



jurisdiction as to the effect of the death of a party be- 
fore judgment, and on whether or not the judgment Is 
an entirety. 

Under the rule, considered infra 33 b, that a 
judgment for or against several parties is an en- 
tirety and either good or bad as a whole, and where, 
as discussed supra subdivision a of this section, the 
death of a party before judgment renders the judg- ! 
ment void, a judgment for or against several parties 
jointly after the death of one of them is void as to 
all of them; 27 but where such death renders the 
judgment merely erroneous and voidable, a judg- 
ment for or against several parties jointly after the 
death of one of them, while not void, is erroneous 
and voidable as to all of them. 28 On the other 
hand, in jurisdictions where a judgment for or 
against several parties is not necessarily good or 
bad as an entirety, considered infra 33 b, the 
death of one of such parties before judgment will 
render the judgment void, 29 or merely erroneous 
and voidable, 30 as to such deceased party, according 
to the locally prevailing rule, considered supra sub- 
division a of this section; but it will not affect the 
validity or regularity of the judgment as to thfc 
other parties. 81 

In jurisdictions where judgment may be taken 
for or against one or more of several defendants, 
judgment may be taken against the surviving de- 
fendant or defendants in an action against several 
defendants, one or more of whom dies prior to 
judgment. 32 The rule that judgment may be ren- 
dered against a party who dies after verdict but 



19. Cal. Copp v. Rives, supra. 

20. Cal. Boyd v. Lancaster, 90 P. 
2d 317, 32 Cal.App.2d 574 Maacon 
v. Avery, 89 P.2d 684, 32 CaLApp. 
2d 300 Scoville v. Keglor, 80 P. 
2d 162, 27 Cal.App.2d 17. 

21. Ky. "Murphy v. Blackburn, 16 
S.W.2d 771, 229 Ky. 109. 

22. Me. Consolidated Rendering 
. Co. v. Martin, 145 A. 896, 128 Me. 
1 96, 64 A.L.R. 790 Trask v. Trask, 

3 A. 37, 78 Me. 103 Bridgham v. 
Prince, 33 Me. 174. 

23. Cal. Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417 Boyd v. 
Lancaster, 90 P.2d 317, 82 CaLApp. 
2d 574. 

La. Muller v. Davis-Wood Lumber 

Co., 2 La.App. 359. 
33 C.J. p 1109 note 77. 
Judgment for heir 

Judgment against lessee in favor 
of lessors individually and as heir 
at law of a deceased lessor is error, 
where Jt appears of record that les- 
sor died after filing of suit and there 
was neither pleading nor proof as 
to condition of deceased's estate or 
that administration was pending, or 



that none was necessary. Levine v. 
Finfcelstein, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W. 
2d 360. 

24. HI. Claflin v. Dunne, 21 N.E. 
834, 129 111. 241, 16 Am.S.R. 263. 
33 C.J. p 1110 note 78. 
Judgment subsequent to party's 

death as ground for: 
Motion or petition to vacate judg- 
ment: 

Generally see infra 276. 
By confession see infra 5 323. 
Writ of error coram nobis see in- 
fra $ 312. 

25- N.Y. In re Miller's Will, 178 
N.B. 555, 2&7 N.Y. 349. 

26. N.Y. In re Miller's Will, supra, 

27. La. McCloskey v. Wingfield, 29 
La.Ann. 141. 

33 C.J. p 1110 note 82. 
Judgment after death of principal in 
action against principal and sure- 
ty see the C.J.S. title Principal 
and Surety 277, also 50 C.J. p 
223* notes 5-6. 

Judgment by confession -against 
several parties jointly, .rendered aft- 
er the death of one, of them, is void 
as to all. State Bank of Prairie du 
Rocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312. 



28. 111. Claflin v. Dunne, 21 N.B: 
834, 129 111. 241, 16 Am.S;R. 263. 

33 C.J. p 1101 note 84. 
Bringing- in representatives 

In action claiming undivided inter- 
est in land, there could.be no proper 
judgment as to all defendants after 
death of one defendant subsequent 
to submission of case without, bring- 
ing In deceased's representatives. 
Murphy v. Blackburn, 16 S.W.2d 771, 
229 Ky. 109. 

29. N.Y. Hawkes -v. Clatty, 107 3ST. 
T.S, 534, 122 App.Div. 546, ; 

30. Ohio. Swasey v.' Antram, ' 24 
Ohio St. 87. ' , 

33 C.J. p 1110 note 87." 

31* Ga. Sanders v. , Etcherson, 96 
Ga, 404 Hardwick v. Hatfleld, 119 
S-B. 430, 30 Ga.App. 7$0. 

33 C.J. p 1110 note 89. 

Death of costipulator as not. affect- 
ing right to judgment against 
stipulator in admiralty proceeding 
see Admiralty I 161. 

32. Cal, Sham v. Forbes, 23 P. 
198, 82 Cal. 577 Howe v. Chand- 
ler, 1 Cat 167. " .-,]"".. 



30 



JUDGMENTS 



49 O.J.S. 



before judgment has been applied where one of two 
joint parties die after verdict 33 In an action by 
several plaintiffs, the death of a plaintiff whose 
cause of action dies with him does not abridge the 
court's right to enter judgment in favor of the 
surviving plaintiffs. 34 Plaintiff is not entitled to 
judgment against a defendant as to whom the ven- 
ue was proper only during the time a codefendant, 
who died during the pendency of the action without 
its revival against his administrator, was a party 
to the action. 35 

30. Joint Parties 

Under the codes and practice acts the Judgment 
may determine the ultimate rights of all parties. 

Under various codes and practice acts the court, 
in rendering judgment, may determine the ultimate 
rights of all the parties to the controversy, 36 and 
may render as many judgments, joint, separate, and 
cross, as may be necessary to adjust the rights of 
the several parties. 87 

31. Plaintiffs Generally 

At common law where several plaintiffs Join in an 
action all must recover or none; but under the various 
statutes and practice acts Judgment is authorized in fa- 
vor of such plaintiffs, as show themselves entitled to re- 
cover, although others fail. 

At common law, and in the absence of statute 
changing the rule, where several plaintiffs join in a 



common-law action, all must recover or none, and 
if only some of the plaintiffs have a right of ac- 
tion, the suit must fail as to all. 38 The rule ap- 
plies to actions on obligations alleged to be due 
plaintiffs jointly, 39 and in some jurisdictions has 
been limited to actions in which plaintiffs assert a 
joint right or title. 40 It has been applied to ac- 
tions ex contractu in which a joint obligation or in- 
debtedness to all plaintiffs is alleged, 4 * to actions 
for contribution, 42 and to actions to recover land 
in which a joint title is alleged in the plaintiffs, 43 
such as actions in ejectment. 44 Qn the other hand, 
judgment has been permitted in favor of fewer than 
all the plaintiffs in actions founded on tort, as an 
action for conversion, 45 in proceedings to cancel a 
chattel mortgage, 46 and in ejectment where the 
plaintiff entitled to recover is trustee of his co- 
plaintiffs 47 or where a plaintiffs right to recover 
is barred by the statute of limitations. 48 

Under the various codes and practice acts judg- 
ment is authorized in favor of any plaintiff who 
shows himself entitled, although the others may 
fail, 49 as where the claims of the several plaintiffs 
are distinct, although sufficiently united by a com- 
mon interest to authorize their joinder in a single 
suit; 50 and, even though the coplaintiffs are enti- 
tled to share in the recovery, a judgment awarding 
the entire recovery to one plaintiff alone is not 



33. N.T. Long: V. Stafford, 8 N.E. 
522, 103 N.Y. 274. 

84 C.J. p 76 note 67 [a] (5). 

34. Cal. Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417. 

35. Ark. Murrell v. Exchange 
Bank, 271 S.W. 21, 168 Ark. 645, 
44 A.L.R. 1391. 

36. Neb. Whaley v. Matthews, 287 
N.W. 205, 1-86 Neb. 767, 

Death of one Joint party see supra 
5 29. 

37. Miss. Aven v. -Singleton, 96 So. 
165, 132 Miss. 256. 

38. Ala. Sharpe v. McCloud, 199 
So. 848, 240 Ala. 499. 

Fla. Sahlberg v. J. A. Teague Fur- 
niture Co., 130 So. 432, 100 Fla. 
972. 

Oa. Powell v. Porter, 5 S.B.2d 884, 
189 Ga. 440. ' 

HI. Misek v. Village of La Grange, 
239 I11.APP. 360. 

Mo. Tore v. Tore, 144 S.W. 847, 240 
Mo. 451. 

33 C.J. p 1110 note 92. 

Conformity to pleadings with re- 
spect to parties see Infra 51. 

38. Mo. Dietrich v. Mothershead, 
App.,'150 S.W.2d 565 McLaran v. 
Wilhelm, 50 Mo.App. 658. 



40. Ala. Henderson v. J. B. Brown 
Co., 28 So. 79, 125 Ala. 566. 

33 C.J. p 1110 note 92 [a]. 

41. Fla, Sahlberg v. J. A. Teague 
Furniture Co., 130 So. 482, 100 Fla. 
972 Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 
97 Fla. 679. 

42. Ala. Gafford V. Tittle, 141 So. 
653, 224 Ala. 605. 

Mo. Tore v. Tore, 144 S.W. 847, 
240 Mo. 451. 

43. Ga Guess v. Morgan, 26 S.E. 
2d 424, 196 Ga. 265 Powell v. 
Porter, 5 S.E.2d 884, 189 Ga. 440 
Burton v. Patton, 1*34 S.E. 603, 
162 Ga. 610. 

44. Ala. Sharpe v. McCloud, 199 
So. 848, 240 Ala. 499 McLeod v. 
Adams, 118 So. 636, 218 Ala. 424 
Crow v. Smith, 92 So. 905, 207 Ala. 
311 Salter v. Fox, 67 So. 1006, 191 
Ala. 34 Whitlow v. Echols, 78 
Ala. 206. 

Ga. Guess v. Morgan, 26 S.E.2d 424, 

196 Ga. 265. 
19 C.J. p 1092 note 2, p 1217 note 50. 

45. Mo. Walker v. Lewis, 124 S. 
W. 567, 140 Mo.App. 26. 

46. Mo. Harrety v. Kontos, App., 
184 S.W.2d 195. 

47. Ind. Adler v. Sewell, 29 Ind. 
598. 

74 



48. Ga. Pendergrast v. Gullatt, 10 
Ga. 218. 

49. Cal. Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417 Wiseman 
v. -Sklar, 285 P. 1081, 104 CaLApp. 
369 Curtis v. Nye & Nissen, 261 
P. 747, 86 CaLApp. 507. 

Ind. Rohan v. Gehring, 137 N.E. 

288, 80 IndApp. 46. 
Miss. Aven v. Singleton, 96 So. 165, 

132 Miss. 256. 
Neb. Hoffman v. Geiger, 279 N.W. 

350, 1<34 Neb. 643, modified on oth- 
er grounds 281 N.W. 625, 135 Neb. 

349. 
Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in City of 

Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P. 418, 430, 

147 Okl. 179. 
Tex South Dakota^Texas Oil Co. 

v. Hackworth, Civ.App., 248 S.W. 

813, error dismissed. 
33 C.J. p 1110 note 93. 
Equitable precedents controlling 

The code provisions are in sub- 
stance enactments of rules of equi- 
ty pleading and practice and equita- 
ble precedents control their con- 
struction or effect. Bonde v. Stern, 
14 N.W.2d 249, 73 N.D. 273. 

50. Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in 
City of Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P. 
418, 430, 147 Okl. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1111 note 94. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



void. 51 The authorization for such a judgment has 
been held to apply in all actions, whether in law or 
equity, 52 and in actions ex contractu 53 and in eject- 
ment. 54 In equity, the common-law rule has no 
application, and a decree may be rendered for one 
or more joint plaintiffs and against others, as jus- 
tice and equity in the particular case may require, 
as discussed in Equity 601. 

A judgment against, coplaintiffs is void as to a 
plaintiff over whom the court does not have juris- 
diction; 55 but in jurisdictions where a judgment is 
not regarded as an entirety, which is either good or 
bad as to all, the invalidity of a judgment as to one 
of two or more coplaintiffs against whom it is ren- 
dered will not vitiate it as to the others. 56 Where 
an action should have been dismissed as to one of 
two defendants on plaintiff's motion therefor, it has 
been held that a judgment entered on the other de- 
fendant's cross bill cannot determine issues between 
plaintiff and the defendant as to whom the action 
should have been dismissed. 57 

Joint or several judgment; separate judgments. 
A judgment in favor of joint plaintiffs should be 
joint if their cause of action is joint; 58 but if their 
cause of action is several the judgment should be 
several.^ 9 Thus a joint recovery on separate, sev- 
eral, and independent causes of action in favor of 
separate plaintiffs is improper; 60 in such case a 
judgment which does not preserve the separate 
rights of each in the total recovery is illegal. 61 
However, the failure to designate the amount 



awarded to each of the plaintiffs has been held .not 
to be error where only one plaintiffs cause was 
actually tried and the judgment is for plaintiff, in 
the singular. 62 In some jurisdictions a judgment 
which does not dispose of the case as to all the 
plaintiffs is erroneous; 63 but under some statutes 
the common-law restriction against the rendition of 
more than one judgment in an action has been 
changed so as to permit the rendition of as many 
separate judgments as are necessary to adjust the 
rights of the several plaintiffs. 64 

32. Relief as between Coplaintiffs 

Under various statutes a judgment determining the 
ultimate rights of the plaintiffs as between themselves 
is authorized. 

Under the statutes and practice acts in a num- 
ber of jurisdictions the judgment may determine 
the ultimate rights of the plaintiffs as between 
themselves. 65 

33. Defendants Generally 

a. In general 

b. Entirety of judgment 

c. Process against joint defendants 

a. In General 

The common -law rule requiring Judgment fn an ac- 
tion against several defendants to be against all or none 
has generally been changed by statute so as to permit 
judgment against some or all of the defendants. 

*^a 
At common law, and in the absence of statute 



51. Tex. Chandler v. Stewart, Civ. 
App M 90 S.W,2d 590, error dis- 
missed. 

52. N.D. Bonde v. Stern, 14 N.W.2d 
249, 73 N.D. 273. 

53. Ind. Rohan v. Gehring, 137 N. 
E. 288, 80 Ind.App. 46. 

N.Y. Comerford v. Fahy Market, 
198 N.T.S. 3-53, 204 App.Div. 533. 

54. Tenn. Ferguson v. Prince, 190 
S.W. 548, 136 Tenn. 543. 

19 C.J. p 1092 note 1, p 1217 notes 
51 [b], 52. 

66. Cal. Tracy v. Maclntyre, 84 P. 

2d 526, 29 Cal.App.2d 145. 
Plaintiff not notified 

A judgment against coplaintiffs 
for attorney fees of an attorney dis- 
missed on a motion to substitute at- 
torneys is void as to a plaintiff who 
was not notified of and did not ap- 
pear at the hearing on the motion. 
Tracy v. Maclntyre, supra. 

66. CaL Tracy v. Maclntyre, su- 
pra, 

57. U.S. auter v. First Nat Bank, 
C.C.A.I11., 8 F.2d 121. 

Effect of dismissal or nonsuit on de- 
fendant's right to affirmative re- 



lief see Dismissal and Nonsuit 
39 b. 

Plaintiff's right to dismiss as to one 
or more codefendants see Dismiss- 
al and Nonsuit 30-32. 
58, Ind. Wheeler v. Hawkins, 19 

N.B. 470, 116 Ind. 515. 
33 C.J. p 1126 note 22. 
$9. Cal. Emery v. Pacific Employ- 
ers Ins. Co., 67 P.2d 1046, 8 Cal. 
2d 663. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 22. 
Action under Pair labor Standards 

Act 

In action by employees on behalf 
of themselves and other employees 
similarly situated to recover over- 
time compensation under Fair Labor 
Standards Act, a joint judgment may 
not be had. Smith v. Stark Truck- 
Ing, D.C.Ohio, 53 F.Supp. 826. 
60. Teac. First Nat Bank v. Cros- 

sett, Civ.App., 268 S.W. 997. 
Wyo. Taylor v. Stockwell, 145 P. 
743, 22 Wyo. 492, rehearing denied 
147 P. 3-28, 22 Wyo. 492. 
33 C.J. p 1111 note 94 [a]. 

L N.J. Musto v. Mitchell, 146 A. 
212, 105 NJT.Law 575 Wilson v. 
Deschner, 167 A. 670, 11 N.J.Miac, 

75 



609 Warner v. Public Service Co- 
ordinated Transport, 153 A.. 711, 9 
N.J.Misc. 328. 

62. N.J. Melber v. Great Atlantic 
& Pacific Tea Co., 167 A. 746, 11 
N.J.Misc. 635. 

63. Colo. -Shaw v. Brady, 251 P. 
532, 80 Colo. 337. 

64. Miss. Aven v. Singleton, 96 So. 
165, 132 Miss. 256. 

Rendition of separate judgments 
against several defendants see in- 
fra 36 c. 
Plaintiff suing ia double capacity 

Where same party suing Individ* 
ually and as administratrix in one 
action recovers both for death ben- 
efits payable to her and sick bene- 
fits payable to decedent, judgments 
for the death benefits should be en- 
tered in her own name, and judff^ 
ment for sick benefits entered sepa* 
rately in her representative capaci- 
ty. Wallace v. Patriotic Order Sons 
of America, Washington Camp No. 
50, 189 A. 712, 125 Pa, Super. 268. 

66. Cal.- Curtis v. Nye & Nissen, 

261 P. 747, '86 Cal.App. 507. * 
In eaulty see Equity $603. 



33 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



changing the rule, if several defendants are joined 
in an action recovery ordinarily must be for or 
- against all or none, 66 at least in an action in which 
the liability asserted is joint 67 In many states, 
however, under the codes and practice acts therein 
or authorized rules of court, judgment may be given 
for or against one or more of several defendants, 
and in an action against several defendants the 
court may in its discretion render judgment against 
one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed 
against the others whenever a several judgment is 
proper. 68 Such statutes were intended to create a 
common procedure for both actions ex contractu 
and ex delicto, 69 and to apply to all actions founded 
on contract the same rule with regard to the right 
of recovery against some of the defendants which 
prevails at common law in the case of actions found- 
ed on torts, 70 or, as some authorities say, to adopt 
the rule prevailing in equity as to joint defend- 
ants. 71 

Under such statutes the court possesses chancery 
powers and may adapt its judgment to the rights of 



the parties as found from the facts established from 
the evidence. 72 If a plaintiff sues two or more de- 
fendants on a liability alleged to be joint, or joint - 
and several, he is no longer compelled to establish 
a joint cause of action against all, but a judgment 
may be taken against the party or parties shown to 
be liable, when the others are not liable, 78 and in 
favor of defendant or defendants found not liable. 74 
Plaintiff is not required to elect before completion 
of the trial whether he will ask for a joint judgment 
against all the defendants sued or a several judg- 
ment against one of them. 75 

A statute which authorizes judgment against such 
defendants as are defaulted or on trial are found 
liable has been held not to enable the court, on 
sustaining a demurrer as to one defendant, to pro- 
ceed to trial and enter judgment against the re- 
maining defendants. 76 Since an amendment cannot 
be made which effects an entire change of parties 
defendant, as discussed in the CJ.S. title Parties 
72, 85, also 47 CJ. p 131 note 28, p 161 note 20- 
p 162 note 37, if plaintiff is not entitled to recover 



66. Fla. Harrington v. Bowman, 
US So. 651, 106 Fla. 86. 

67. Pa. Bauman v. Blttner, 33 A. 
2d 273. 152 Pa.Super. 628. 

68. Ala. Pollard v. Rogers, 173 So. 
881, 234 Ala, 92. 

Ariz. Bracker Stores v. Wilson, 103 

P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403. 
Cal. Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v. 

Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209 
i P. 357, 189 Cal. 509 Weisz v. Mc- 
1 See, 87 P.2d 379, 31 Cal.App.2d 
1 144, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200, 

31 Cal.App.2d 144. 
Colo. Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 

1084, 108 Colo. 434. 
Conn. Woodruff v. Perroti, 122 A, 

452, 99 Conn. 639. 
Ind. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of 

Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199 

N.E. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301. 
Mich. Rimmele v. Huebner, 157 N. 

W. 10, 190 Mich. 247. 
Neb. Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N. 

W.^205, 136 Neb. 767. 
N.J. Ordinary of State v. Bastian, 5 

AJ2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105. 
NT. Reeve v. Cromwell, 237 N.T. 

S. 20, 227 App.Div. 32. 
OkL Corpus Juris quoted in City 

of Sapulpa v. .Young, 296 P. 418, 

431,. 147 Okl. 179. 
Or, Anderson y. Maloney, 225 P. 

318, 111 Or. 84 Fischer v. Bayer, 

216 P. 1028, 108 Or. 311. 
Tex. Shaw v. Whitfleld, Civ.App., 
. 3-5 S.W.2d 1115 Collins v. Stiiger, 

CivJVjpp., 253 S.W. 572. 
S3 C.J. p 1115 note 21. 
Additional defendants 

The statute applies to additional 
defendants brought on the record by 
scir-e facias proceeding- where "the 



original defendant alleges that they 
are Jointly liable with him. Carroll 
v. Kirk, 19 A.2d 584, 144 Pa.Super. 
211. 

69. Ark. OBerryman v. Cudahy 
Packing Co., 87 S.W.2d 21, 191 
Ark. 533. 

70. Ind. Brandt v. Hall, 82 N.E. 
929, 40 Ind.App. 651. 

33 C.J. p 1117 note 25. 
Common-law rule in actions of: 

Contract see infra 34. 

Tort see infra 35. 

71. N.D. Bonde v. Stern, 14 N.W. 
2d 249, 73 N.D. 273. 

33 C.J. p 1117 note 26. 

72. Cal. Fageol Truck & Coach 
Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co.,. 117 P. 
2d 669, 18 Cal.2d 748. 

Ind. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of 
Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199 
N.B. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301. 
Differentiation of liability of de- 
fendants 

In action against principal and 
guarantor who did not guarantee en- 
tire debt, judgment which allowed 
greater recovery against principal 
than against guarantor was not 
duplicitous. Baten v. Thornhill, Tex. 
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 608, srror re- 
fused. 
Where only one satisfaction . per. 

mitted 

(1) Decree ordering enforcement 
of mortgage debt out of various 
properties of different defendants 
but providing for only one satisfac- 
tion of the debt was not contradic- 
tory. Gray v. First Nat. Bank of 
Chicago, 51 N;R2d 797, 320 IlLApp. 

76 



682, reversed on other grounds 57 
N.B.2d 363, 388 111. 124. 

(2) Judgment permitting note 
holder to recover from maker and 
maker's debtor was not objectiona- 
ble as allowing double recovery, 
where judgment provided for credit- 
ing maker with amount collected 
from his debtor. J. C. Whaley Dum- 
ber Co. v. Citizens' Nat Bank of 
Lubbock, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 
637. 

73. Ga. Farley v. Groover, 3 S.E. 

2d 135, 60 Ga.App. 169. 
Iowa. Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank, 

81 N.W. 784, 110 Iowa -537. 
La, Raphiel v. Louisiana Ry. & 

Nav. Co., 99 So. 459, 155 La. 590. 
Mass. Mackintosh v. Chambers, 190 

N.E. 38, 285 Mass. 594. 
Nev. Ward v. -Scheeline Banking- & 

Trust Co., 22 P.2d 358, 54 Nev. 442. 
Or. Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P. 453, 

108 Or. 311. 
Vt C. B. Johnson & Co. v. Marsh, 

15 A.2d 577, 111 Vt. 266, 131 AJU 

R. '502 F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Mor- 

rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt. 22. 
33 C.J. p 1115 note 24. 
In actions against partners see the 

C.J.S. title Partnership 235, also 

47 C.J. p 1010 note l-s> 1011 note 

11. 



74. Mo. Wippler v. Hohn, 110 

2d 409, 341 Mo. 780: 
33 .J. p 1127 note 26. 



76. Mich. Rimmele v. Huebner, 
157 N.W. 1$, 190 Mich. 247. 

76. Mass. Riley v. Burns, 22 NJEB. 
2d 761, 304 Mass. 15. 



49 O.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



33 



against the original defendant judgment cannot be 
had against a new defendant brought into the case, 
unless he consents thereto. 77 

Abatement as to some of defendants. In an ac- 
tion against several defendants on a joint obliga- 
tion a judgment in abatement in favor of one of 
the defendants on his plea of privilege as to venue, 
applicable to himself alone, has been held to be er- 
toneous. 78 

b. Entirety of Judgment 

In some jurisdictions a judgment against several de- 
fendants is an entirety, and if erroneous or void as to 
any of them is equally so as to all; but In other Ju- 
risdictions the rule I* otherwise. 

According to some authorities a judgment against 
two or more defendants jointly is regarded as an 
entirety, 79 whether rendered in a contract or tort 
action,80 so that, if it is irregular or erroneous 81 
or void 82 as to any of the defendants, it is equally 
so as to all. According to other authorities, how- 
ever, a judgment against two or more defendants 
is not regarded as an entirety, 8 ^ and a judgment 
may be valid and enforceable as to one or some of 
defendants, although voidable or void as to oth- 
ers, 84 at least in actions ex delicto. 85 Decisions 
even within the same jurisdiction are sometimes in 



conflict as to the entirety of judgments. 88 In some 
of the decisions it has been stated that the com- 
mon-law rule that judgments are entireties is ef- 
fective only in exceptional cases, 87 that the rule 
has been relaxed in some cases in the interest of 
justice where error is found as to one party only, 88 
and that the rule is not applicable to judgments in 
actions in rem. 89 

c. Process against Joint Defendants 

(1) In general 

(2) Resident and nonresident joint de- 

fendants 

(3) Statutory joint judgment 

(4) Statutory separate judgment 

(1) In General 

In an action against several defendants, only some 
of whom were duly served with process, Judgment against 
all is void as to the defendants not served; and, un- 
less the rule is changed by statute, it Is void as to the 
others If the Judgment Is considered as an entirety. If 
judgment is rendered against only the defendants served 
with process, it is erroneous or voidable where the ac- 
tion is on a Joint contract, unless the statutes provide 
otherwise. 

In general, as discussed supra 19, 23, a judg- 
ment against persons over whom the court has not 
acquired jurisdiction is void. Accordingly, if there 



77. Ala. Covington v. Robinson, 6 
So.2d 421, 242 Ala. 337 McKelvey- 
Coats Furniture Co. v. Doe, 198 So. 
128, 240 Ala. 135 Roth v. Scruggs, 
106 So. 182, 214 Ala. 32. 
Situation does not arise until the 

evidence is in If the plaintiff con- 
tends that both parties are liable. 
- McKelvey-Coats Furniture Co. v. 
Doe, 199 So. 128, 240 Ala. 135. 

78. Fla, Universal Credit Co. v. 
Beckwith, 172 So. -358, 126 Fla. 
865. 

Necessity for two or more defend- 
ants to plead grounds of abate- 
ment separately or jointly seel 
Abatement and Revival 188 c. 

79. 111. State Bank of Prairie du: 
Bocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312 
Sergo v. Bloch, 263 llLApp. 198. 

Mo. Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389. 

33 C.J. p 1130 note 59. 

Entirety of judgments generally see 
supra 3. 

.80. 111. State Bank of Prairie du 
Rocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312. 

81. 111. Fredrich v. Wolf, 50 N.E.2d 
755, 383 111. 638 Sergo v. Bloch, 
263 Ill.App. 198. 

Mo. Neal' v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 

41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389. 

33 C.J. p 1130 note 59. 

Death of party see supra 29. 

Reversal as to some of the parties 
and affirmance as to others on ap- 



peal or writ of error see Appeal 
and Error 1919-1922. 

82. 111. State Bank of Prairie du 
Rocher v. Brown, 263 ULApp. 312 
Berkemeier v. Dormuralt Motor 
Sales, 263 ULApp. 211 Singer v. 
Cross, 257 IlLApp. 41. 

Me. Consolidated Rendering Co. v. 

Martin, 145 A. 896, 128 Me. 96, 

64 A.L.R. 790. 
33 C.J. p 1119 note 37, p 1130 note 

59. 

83. . Ky. Reed v. Runyan, 10 S.W. 
2d 824, 226 Ky. 261. 

Miss. Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos- 
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug- 
gestion of error sustained on oth- 
er grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss. 
825. 

33 C.J. p 1130 note 60. 

84. Ky. Reed v. Runyan, 10 S.W. 
2d 824, 226 Ky. 261. 

Okl. Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301, 

138 Okl. 15. 
Pa. Merchants Banking Trust Co. 

v. Klimosky, 9 Pa.Dist. & Co. 143, 

23 Sch.Leg.Rec. 78. 
Tex. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 

v. Richey, Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 231, 

error refuser'. 
33 C.J. p 1130 note 60. 

85. Minn. Engstrand v. Kleftman, 
90 N.W. 1054, 86 Minn. 40-3, 91 
Am.S.R. 359. 

86. Mo. Mclntosh v. Wiggins, 191 
S.W.2d 637, certiorari denied 66 
S.Ct 1015 Neal v. Curtis '& Coil 

77 



Mfg. Co., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 

389. 

33 C.J. p 1131 note 61. 
In Mississippi' 

(1) It has been held that a judg- 
ment at law is an entirety and is 
valid or invalid as a whole. Bout- 
well v. Grayson, 79 So. 61, 118 Miss. 
80 Carrollton Hardware & Imple- 
ment Co. v. Marshall, 78 So. 7, 117 
Miss. 224 Comenitz v. Bank of Com- 
merce, 38 So. 35, 85 Miss. 662 Weis 
v. Aaron, 21 So. 763, 75 Miss. 138, 
65 Am.S.R. 594. 

(2) These cases, however, have 
been overruled. Bank of Philadel- 
phia v. Posey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 
530, suggestion of error sustained on 
other grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss. 
825. 

(3), The overruled decisions will 
control the validity of a judgment 
which affects property rights where 
it was rendered prior to the time 
they were overruled. Bank of Phil- 
adelphia v. Posey, 95 So. 134, 130 
Miss. 825. 

8(7. Mo. State v. Blakemore, 205 S. 
W. 626, 275 Mo. 695. 

88. Mo. Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. 
Co., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389 
Stotler v, Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 98 
S.W. 509, 200 Mo. 107. 

89. Mo. Mclntosh v. 'Wiggins, 191 
S.W.2d 537, certiqrarj denied 66 
S.Ct. 1015. 



33 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



are several defendants, all must be served with 
process or appear in the action in order to warrant 
a judgment against all; 9 ^ and, where none was 
properly served with process or made an appear- 
ance in the action, a personal judgment against 
such defendants is void, 91 A judgment against all 
the defendants, some of whom were not served with 
process and did not appear in the action, is void as 
to the absent defendant or defendants, 92 and at com- 
mon law and in the absence of statute changing the 
rule is at least erroneous and voidable as to all the 
defendants. 93 In jurisdictions where a judgment is 
considered as an entirety and if void as to one 
party is void as to all, discussed supra subdivision 
b of this section, such a judgment is absolutely void 
as to all. 94 However, in jurisdictions where judg- 
ments are not considered as an entirety, such a 
judgment is at most voidable and not void as to the 
defendants who were served with process or ap- 
peared; 95 and in some jurisdictions if the action is 
ex delicto the judgment is valid and binding against 
the defendants served with process. 96 Under the 
codes and practice acts in various jurisdictions the 
judgment is valid and binding against parties over 
whom the court had jurisdiction by proper service 
of process or appearance, 97 or at least it is an er- 
ror or irregularity of which the defendants served 
cannot complain. 98 

f 

90. I1L Werner v. W. H. Shons Co- 
173 N.B. 486, 341 111. 478. 



At common law and in the absence of statute 
changing the rule, a judgment against only the de- 
fendants served with process or appearing is er- 
roneous and voidable as to them in an action on a 
joint contract against several defendants, some of 
whom were not subjected to the jurisdiction of the 
court by due service of process or appearance, 99 
it having been the rule under the early common 
law that, where several defendants were sued on a 
joint contract, plaintiff was not entitled to judg- 
ment against any of them, until all were served 
with process, or until those not served were prose- 
cuted to outlawry. 1 Under some statutes the fail- 
ure to obtain service of process on some of sev- 
eral defendants will not affect the validity of a 
judgment against the others in an action on a joint 
and several obligation; 2 and under others it has 
been held that in an action against several defend- 
ants on a joint obligation judgment may properly 
be taken against one, or fewer than all, where the 
other defendants were nonresidents not served with 
process. 3 A voluntary general appearance for de- 
fendants not served will confer jurisdiction and per- 
mit a judgment against all. 4 Statutes in derogation 
of the common law, and authorizing judgment 
jointly against all defendants on process served on 
only some of them, discussed infra subdivision c 
(3) of this section, or a several judgment against 



91. Ky. Viall v. Walker, 58 S.W. 
2d 415, 248 Ky. 197. 

In discovery proceeding 1 after 
judgment, however, the court under 
some statutes has been held to have 
Jurisdiction to render personal judg- 
ment on service of summons against 
defendants out of county, even 
though none resided, or was served, 
within county. Viall v. Walker, su- 
pra. 

92. Ga. Hicks v. Bank of Wrights- 
ville, 194 S.B. 892, 7 Ga.App. 233. 

Ky. Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d 717, 
226 Ky. 689. 

Miss. Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos- 
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug- 
gestion of error sustained on oth- 
er grounds, 95 So. 134, 1-30 Miss. 
825. 

N.C. Crocker v. Vann, 135 S.E. 127, 
192 N.C. 422. 

Okl. Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301, 
138 Okl. 15. 

Tenn. Ridgeway v. Bank of Ten- 
nessee, 11 Humph. 523 Galbraith 
v. Kirby, 109 S.W.2d 1168, 21 Tena 
App. 303. 

33 C.J. p 1118 note 34. 

Statutory joint judgment see infra 
subdivision c (3). of this section. 



93. Ky. Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d 
717, 226 Ky. 689. 

33 C,J. p 1119 note 35. 

94. Me. Buffum v. Ramsdell, 65 
Me. 252, 92 Am.D. 589. 

33 C.J. p 1119 note 36. 

95. Ky. Capper v. Short, 11 S.W. 
2d 717, 226 Ky. 689. 

83 C.J. p 1119 note 38. 

96. Minn. Engstrand v. Kleffman, 
90 N.W. 1054, 86 Minn. 40.3, 91 
Am.S.R. 359. 

97. Fla. Street v. Crosthwait, 183 
So. 820, 134 Fla. 158, modified on 
other grounds 186 So, 516, 136 Fla. 
327. 

Miss. Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos- 
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug- 
gestion of error sustained on other 
grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss. 825. 

Mo. Nations v. Beard, 267 S.W. 
19, 216 Mo.App. 33. 

Okl. Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301, 
138 Okl. 15. 

Tex. Taylor v. Hustead & Tucker, 
Civ. App., 248 S.W. 766, reversed on 
other grounds, Com. App., 257 S.W. 
232. 

98. Go. Hicks v. Bank of Wrights- 
ville, 194 S.E. 892, 57 Ga.App. 233. 

Mo. State ex rel. Cunningham v. 
Haid, 40 S.W.2d 1048, 828 Mo. 208. 
33 C.J. p 1119 note 40. 



99. 



Fla. Harrington 

78 



v. Bowman, 



136 So. 229, 102 Fla. 339, modified 

on other grounds 143 So. <651, 106 

Fla. 86. 

33 C.J. p 1118 note 33. 
Process or appearance see supra 5 

23-26. 

1. Fla. Corpus Juris cited in Har- 
rington v. Bowman, 143 So. 661, 
653, 106 Fla. 86. 

33 C.J. p 1118 note 81. 

2. Ga. Hicks v. Bank of Wrights- 
ville, 194 S.E. 892, 57 G*a.App. 233. 

3. Mass. Alfred J. Silberstein, 
Inc., v. Nash, 10 N.B.2d 65, 298 
Mass. 170 Lennon v. Cohen, 16-3 
N.E. 63, 264 Mass. 414. 

4* Ala. Eaton v. Harris, 42 Ala. 

491. 

33 C.J. p 1119 note 41. 
Collateral attack where appearance 

unauthorized see infra 424. 
Unauthorized appearance 

Judgment against nonresident de- 
fendant on demurrer filed by other 
defendants and purporting to include 
him was void where he had not been 
served with process, had not volun- 
tarily appeared or authorized any 
attorney to appear for him, and had 
not authorized any of codefendants 
or other persons to employ counsel 
for him. Street v. Dexter. 77 P.2d 
707, 182 Okl. 360. 



49 



JUDGMENTS 



33 



only those served, discussed infra subdivision c (4) 
of this section, must be strictly construed and fol- 
lowed; judgment is authorized only in cases falling 
within the statute as thus construed.* 

. Construction of judgment. Where process is 
served only on some of the defendants, and judg- 
ment is taken against "defendants" without naming 
them, and without any appearance of those not 
served, the judgment will be understood to be only 
against those who were duly served. 6 

(2) Resident and Nonresident Joint Defend- 
ants 

In the absence of a compliance with statutory re- 
quirements, a judgment against Joint defendants, resi- 
dents of different counties or districts, Is void as to the 
nonresident defendants. 

Under statutes authorizing the venue of actions 
against several defendants, who are properly joined 
as such, although residents of different counties, to 
be laid in the county where one of them resides or 
is summoned, discussed in the C.J.S. title Venue 
93-98, also 67 CJ. p 101 note 22-p 118 note 27, 
and permitting in such actions the issuance and 
service of process on the nonresident defendants, 
discussed in the C.J.S. title Process 8, 32, also SO 
CJ. p 451 notes 6-12, p 475 note 1-p 476 note 13, 
a judgment taken against a nonresident of the coun- 
ty of venue contrary to the provisions of the stat- 
ute is void as to him; 7 but in jurisdictions where 
judgments are not considered as an entirety, dis- 
cussed supra subdivision b of this section, it is not 
thereby made void as* to parties who were properly 



served with process.* Thus a judgment against a 
defendant who was not summoned in the county of 
venue is void as to him where the resident and non- 
resident defendants were improperly joined in the 
action; 9 and it is likewise void, where a statute 
prohibits judgment in such case, if the action is 
discontinued or dismissed as to, 10 or judgment is 
not rendered against, 11 the defendant or defend- 
ants residing or served in the county of venue. If, 
however, the nonresident defendant appears and 
contests the court's jurisdiction over him, or other- 
wise enters his appearance, a judgment against him 
is at most erroneous or voidable. 12 

(3) Statutory Joint Judgment 
Under various joint debtor acts a Judgment in form 
against all the defendants may be rendered In an action 
on a Joint obligation against several defendants, some 
of whom were not served with process, which Is good 
as a personal Judgment against the defendants served 
and enforceable against their separate property and the 
Joint property of all, located within the state, but not 
against the individual property of those not served. 

Under a class of statutes commonly known as 
"joint debtor acts," 13 which have been sustained as 
essentially constitutional, 1 * and which were enacted 
to supersede the necessity of proceeding to outlawry 
against one not found or brought into court, 15 it 
has been held that, where one or more defendants 
are sued on a joint obligation, and process is served 
on one or more but not on all defendants, plaintiff 
may proceed against those served, unless the court 
otherwise directs, 1 * and, if successful, recover a 
judgment in form against all the defendants, 17 
which is good as a personal judgment against de- 



5. Fla. Davis v. First Nat. Bank 
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So. 
633, 112 Fla. 485 Harrington v. 
Bowman, 143 So. 651, 106 Fla, 86. 

33 C.J. p 1119 note 45. 

6. Ark. Neal v. Singleton, 26 Ark. 
491. 

33 O.J. p 1119 note 46. 

7. Ky. Hays v. Baker, 35 S.W.2d 
296, 237 Ky. 265. 

8. Ky. Reed v. Runyon, 10 S.W.2d 
824, 226 Ky. 261. 

9. Ky. Ramey v. Weddington, 105 
S.W.2d 824, 268 Ky. 675 Willis 
v. Tomes, 132 S.W. 1043, 141 Ky. 
431. 

Collusive Joinder of defendants for 
the sole purpose of bringing suit 
against a nonresident of the county 
of venue will render judgment 
against nonresident void. Wistrom 
v. Forsling, 9 N.W.2d 294, 143 Neb. 
294, rehearing denied and opinion 
modified on other grounds 14 N.W. 
2d 217, 144 Neb. 638. 
Joint liability not shown 
Ky. Ramey v. Weddington, 105 S. 

W.2d 824. 268 Ky. 675. 



10. Ark. Stiewel v. Borman, 37 S. 

W. 404, .63 Ark. 30. 
Ky. Ramey v. Weddington, 105 S. 

W.2d 824, 268 Ky. 675. 
67 C.J. p 110 note 1 [b] (3). 

lli Ky. Ramey v. Weddington, su- 
pra. 
3d C.J. p 1085 note 26 [a]. 

12. Ky. Ramey v. Weddington, su- 
praHays v. Baker, 35 S.W.2d 
296, 237 Ky. 265. 

13. U.S. Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91 
U.S. 160, 168, 23 LJBd. 271. 

Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in. City of 
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431, 
147 Okl. 179. 

Judgment in action on partnership 
obligation where some of partners 
not served with process see the 
C.J.S. title Partnership S 235, also 
47 C.J. p 1011 note 22-p 1013 note 
31. 

Sufficiency of service of process on 
part of several executors or ad- 
ministrators see Executors and 
Administrators 753. 

79 



14. Okl. Corpus juris quoted in 
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1119 note 48. 

15. OkL Corpus Juris quoted in 
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179. 

33 CJ. p 1119 note 49. 

le. U.S. Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91 

U.S.'l'SO, 2i3 L.Ed. 271. 
Okl. Corpus JurU quoted in City of 

Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431, 

147 Okl. 179. 
Or. Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949, 

157 Or. 280. 
33 C.J. p 1120 note 50. 

17. U.S. Hall v. Lanning, 111., 91 

U.S. 160, 23 L.Bd. 271. 
N.Y. Kittredge v. Grannis, 165 N. 

B. 9S, 244 N.Y. 182 Kirsten v. 

Chrystmos, 14 N.Y.S.2d 442. 
Okl. Corpus Juris quoted, in City of 

Capulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431, 

147 OkL 179. 
Or. Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949, 

157 Or. 280. 
33 C.J. p 1120 note 51. 



33 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



f endants who were served, or who appeared, and is 
enforceable against their separate property, 18 and 
the joint property of them and the absent defend- 
ant 19 located within the state, 20 but not against the 
latter's individual property. 21 

Judgment under the statute is not authorized un- 
less the obligation sued on is the joint 22 contractu- 
al 23 obligation of all defendants. A judgment 
against only the defendant or defendants served is 
erroneous. 24 Nonresident joint debtors are within 
the operation of the statute, and property within 
the state owned jointly by nonresident and resident 
defendants may be subject to the judgment, 25 but 
a judgment under the statute against a citizen of 
another state, as an absent joint debtor, is wholly 
void in every other state, and will not be enforced 
or given any effect. 26 Other similar statutes lim- 
ited to particular classes of cases, such as actions 
on bills or notes, or other designated instruments, 
have been enacted from time to time in different 
jurisdictions. 27 

Such a judgment is not good and binding as a 
personal judgment against the absent defendant, 28 
unless made so by the statute, in which event it 
may operate as a personal judgment within the state 
where rendered, 29 subject to the right of the absent 



defendant to show that he was not in fact; a joint 
debtor, and that therefore the judgment against him 
was void for want of jurisdiction, being unauthor- 
ized by statute. 30 It has been held that such a judg- 
ment will not support an action against him on the 
judgment in the state where the judgment was ren-' 
dered, 31 although the rule is otherwise under some 
statutes, 32 and especially not in the courts of anoth- 
er state, 33 and is not entitled, under the constitu- 
tion, to full faith and credit in other states. 34 It 
will not stop the running of the statute of limita- 
tions in favor of the absent defendant, 35 or merge 
or bar the original cause of action, 36 at least not 
in other states, 37 although it may so operate in the 
state, where rendered if the statute so provides. 38 
Such judgments have no other force or effect than 
such as has been expressly given to them by the 
statutes, 39 which may, and sometimes do, make the 
judgment prima facie evidence against the absent 
defendant, reserving to him the right to contest the 
merits and show that he ought not to have been 
chargfed, 40 while under other statutes the judgment 
is not even prima facie evidence of indebtedness. 41 
A joint defendant not served has a right to appear 
voluntarily in the action against plaintiffs objec- 
tion. 42 A statute providing that, when defendants 



18. Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in 
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1120 note 52. 

19. N.Y. Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 
N.B. 93, 244 N.Y. 182. 

Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in City of 
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431, 
147 Okl. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1120 note 52. 

20. Okl. Corpus Juris quoted la 
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 
418, 431, 147 OkT; 179. 

33 C.J. p 1120 note 3. 

21. Okl. Corpus Juris quoted to 
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 
418, 4-31, 147 Okl. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1120 note 54. 

22. N.Y. Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 
N.E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182. 

Or. Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949, 

157 Or. 280. 
33 C.J. p 1121 note 55. 

23. N.Y. Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 
N,E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182. 

Claim held not within statute 

Claim of record holder of bank 
stock against partnership as subse- 
quent purchaser, for indemnity on 
account of assessment, was held not 
claim for joint indebtedness on con- 
tract, such as warranted judgment 
against both debtors where only one 
was served. Broderick v. Adamson, 
265 N.Y.S. 804, 148 Misc. 353, revers- 
ed on other grounds 268 N.Y.S. 7*66, 



240 App.Div. 229, and modified on 
other grounds 269 N.Y.S. 700, 240 
App.Div. 202, motion denied 193 N. 
B. 287, 265 N.Y. 495, and affirmed 
196 N.B. 568, 267 N.Y. 538. Affirmed 
277 N.Y.S. 951, 243 App.Div. 692, and 
279 N.Y.S. 732, 244 App.Div. 707, 
reversed on other grounds 200 N. 
B. 811, 270 N.Y. 260. Affirmed 279 
N.Y.S. 753, 244 App.Div. 708, affirm- 
ed 200 N.B. 797, 270 N.Y. 228. Mod- 
ified on other grounds 285 N.Y.S. 
294, 246 App.Div. 268. Affirmed in 
part 287 N.Y.S. 322, 247 App.Div. 
711, reversed on other grounds 5 
N.B.2d 838, 272 N.Y. 816. 

24. Wis. Brawley v. Mitchell, 66 
N.W. 799, 92 Wis. 671. 

33 C.J. p 1121 note 56. 

25. N.Y. -Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 
N.E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182. 

33 C.J. p 1121 note 57. 

26. U.S. Gojdey .v. Morning News, 
N.Y., 15 S.Ct 559, 156 U.S. .518, 
39 L.Ed. 517. 

33 C.J. p 1121 note 58. 

27. 111. Neal v. Pennington, 6"5 HI. 
App. 68. 

33 C.J. p 1121 note 61. 

28. U.S. Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91 
U.S. 160, 23 L.Bd. 271. 

33 C.J. p 1121 note 62. 

29. N.J. Harker v. Brink, 24 N.J. 
Law W. 

33 C.J. p 1121 note 63. 

3a N.J. Harker v. Brink, supra. 

80 



31. Cal. Tay v. Hawley, 39 Cal. 93. 
33 C.J. p 1121 note 65. 

32. N.Y. Townsend v. Carman, 
Cow. 695, affirmed Carman v* 
Townsend, 6 Wend. 206. 

33 C.J. p 1121 note 66. 

33. U.S. Hall v. Lanning, I1L, 91 
U.S. 160, 2 L.Bd. 271. 

33 C.J. p 1121 note 67. 

34. U.S. Hall v. Lanning, supra. 
3-3 C.J. p 1121 note 68. 

35. N.Y. Maples v. Mackey, 89 N. 
Y. -146 Lane v. gaiter, 51 N.Y, 1. 

36. N.Y. Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4 
N.Y. 513. 

37. Mass. Odoiri v. Denny, 16 Gray 
114. 

38. U.S. D'Arcy v. Ketchum, La., 
11 How. 1-65, 13 L.Ed. 648. 

39. N.Y. Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4 N. 
Y. 513, 

35 C.J. p 1121 note 76. 

40. U.S. D'Arcy v. Ketchum* La., 
17 How. 165, 13 L.Bd. 648. 

N.Y. Townsend v. Carman, 6 Cow., 
695, affirmed Carman v. Townsend, 
6 Wend. 206. 

41. N.Y. -Morey v. Tracey, 92 N.Y. 
581. 

33 C.J. p 1122 note 75. 

42. N.Y. McLoughlin v. Bieber, 51 

N.Y.S. 805, 26 Misc. 143. 
33 C.J. p 1122 note 74. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



34 



are joint and solidary obligors, they may be cited 
at the domicile of any one of them does not give 
the court jurisdiction to render a judgment in per- 
sonam against a nonresident not found within the 
state. 43 

(4) Statutory Separate Judgment 

Under various statutes in a Joint action against sev- 
era) defendants, some of whom were not served with 
process, Judgment may be rendered against those served, 
excluding the others, provided the statutory conditions 
precedent thereto are shown, which serrate Judgment 
binds the Joint property of all the defendants and the 
Individual property of those served. 

Under statutes so providing if two or more per- 
sons are sued in a joint action, plaintiff may pro- 
ceed against any one or more of them on service of 
process on them, notwithstanding there may be 
others not served, and recover a judgment against 
those served, excluding the others, 44 provided it is 
shown that defendants not brought in cannot be 
found or that it is impossible to serve process on 
them, 45 and that there is a joint liability or joint 
cause of action against all, 46 and notation of the 
fact of nonservice on the absent defendant is made 
to appear in the judgment, 47 where the statute 
makes such facts conditions precedent. 48 Such sep- 
arate judgment binds the joint property of all the 
defendants and the individual property of the de- 
fendants served. 49 A several judgment may be 



rendered against only defendants served where the 
liability is joint and several, 60 or, in some juris- 
dictions, even though it is joint 51 



34. 



Contract Actions 



At common law and In the absence of a statute 
changing the rule, a Judgment in an action ex contractu 
against several defendants must be in favor of all de- 
fendants or none, unless a defendant pleads matter which 
goes to his personal discharge or an unnecessary and 
improper party was Joined as defendant. Under various 
codes and practice acts, however, Judgment may be 
taken against the party or parties found liable and in 
favor of those found not liable. 

At common law, and in the absence of a statute 
changing the rule, if several defendants are joined 
in an action ex contractu, and all are brought be- 
fore the court by service or appearance plaintiff 
must recover against all or none, and it is not com- 
petent to enter a judgment in favor of one defend- 
ant and against another. 52 Under codes and prac- 
tice acts authorizing judgments to be rendered for 
or against one or more of several defendants, dis- 
cussed generally supra 33 a, which are applica- 
ble in actions ex contractu, 53 including actions on 
quantum meruit, 54 judgment in an action against 
several defendants on a joint, or joint and several, 
obligation may be taken against the party or par- 
ties shown to be liable, when the others are not 
liable, 55 and in favor of defendant or defendants 



43. La. Klotz v. Tru-Fruit Distrib- 
utors, App., 173 So. S92. 

44. Cal. Merchants' Nat. Bank of 
Los Angeles v. Clark-Parker Co., 
9 P.2d 826, 215 Cal, 296, 81 A.L.R. 
778. 

Fla. Davis v. First Nat Bank & 
Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So. 633, 
112 Fla. 485 Harrington v. Bow- 
man, 143 So. 51, 106 Fla. 86. 

Ohio. Hoyt v. Geo. W. Stone Co., 27 
Ohio N.P.,N.S., 5-33. 

33 C.J. p 1122 notes 77, 78. 

45. Ind. Hunt v. Adamson, 4 Ind. 
108. 

33 C.J. p 1122 note 79. 

46. 111. Cassady v. School Trus- 
tees, 105 111. 560. 

33 C.J. p 1122 note 80. 

47. Fla. Davis v. First Nat Bank 
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So. 
633, 112 Fla. 485. 

48. Fla, Davis v. First Nat Bank 
& Trust Co. of Orlando, supra. 

33 C.J. p 1122 note 81. 

49. Ga. Wright v. Harris, 24 Ga. 
415 Denton v. Hannah, 77 S.B. 
672, 12 Ga.App. 494. 

50. N.M. Leusch v. Nickel, 113 P. 
595, 16 N.M. 28. 

33 aj. p 1122 note 83. 

51. Cal. Merchants' Nat. Bank of 
Los Angeles v. Clark-Parker Co., 

49C.J.S.-6 



9 P.2d 826, 215 Cal. 296, 81 A.L.R. 
778. 

52. Colo. Corpus Juris cited in 
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084, 
1085, 108 Colo. 434 Corpus Juris 
cited in Townsend v. Heath, 103 
P.2d 691, 692, 106 Colo. 273. 
Fla. Davis v. First Nat. Bank & 
Trust Co. in Orlando, 150 So. 33, 
112 Fla. 485 Jones v. Griffin, 138 
So. 38, 103 Fla. 745 Harrington 
v. Bowman, 1-36 So. 229, 102 Fla. 
339, modified on other grounds 143 
So. 651, 106 Fla. 86 Merchants' & 
Mechanics' Bank v. Sample, 124 
So. 49, 98 Fla. 759, rehearing de- 
nied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla. 759. 
Mass. Riley v. Burns, 22 N.B.2d 

761, 304 Mass. 15. 
33 C.J. p 1111 note 98. 
Conformity to pleadings and proof 

see infra 47-64. 
Judgment against: 
One or more: 
Coparties in action: 
Before justice of the peace see 
the C.J.S. title Justices of 
the Peace 110,. also 35 C.J. 
p 674 notes 87-93. 
Of debt see Debt, Action of $ 

16. 

Partners see the C.J.S.. title 
Partnership 235, also 47 C. 
J. p 1010 note 2-p 1011 note 
11. 

81 



Principal and surety see the C. 
J.S. title Principal and Surety 
277, also 50 C.J. p 223 notes 
96-1. 

Defense "by one party 

Where one defendant or several 
joint defendants maintain defense 
which negatives plaintiff's right to 
recover against any defendant, 
plaintiff is not entitled to judgment 
against any defendant, although par- 
ticular defendant does not appear 
or plead such defense. Mackintosh 
v. Chambers, 190 N.B. 38, 285 Mass. 
594. 

68. Ariz. Bracker Stores v. Wilson, 
10-3 P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403. 

Iowa. Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank, 
81 N.W. 784, 110 Iowa 537. 

33 C.J. p 1115 note 22. 

54. Or. Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P. 
452, 108 Or. 311. 

55. Ariz. Bracker Stores v. Wilson, 
103 P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403 Reid 
v. Topper, 259 P. 397, 32 Ariz. 381. 

Colo. Corpus Juris cited in Beatty 
v. Resler, 118 P.2d'1084, 1085, 108 
Colo. 434. 

Conn. Woodruff v. Perrotti, 122 A. 
452, 99 Conn. 639. 

Ind.^rFidelity & Deposit Co. of 
Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199 
NJL. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301. 



34 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



found not liable. 56 However, as discussed infra 
36, such statutes do not permit the rendition of a 
several judgment on a joint cause of action. If 
plaintiff sues on and shows only a joint obligation, 
judgment must be against all jointly liable or 
none, 57 except, under some statutes, where the oth- 
er joint obligors are not served with process, as 
discussed supra 33 c; but if the proofs show a 
several obligation, or a joint obligation as to two 
or more defendants fewer than all, a recovery may 
be had against those shown to be liable regardless 
of the fact that only a joint obligation was al- 
leged. 58 In an action on a contract which at com- 
mon law would have been joint only, but which by 
force of statute is joint and several, as considered 
in Contracts 355 a (2), judgment may be had 
against him or those of the obligees sued who are 
shown to be liable. 59 In an action on a contract 
judgment may run against a party who is not a 
party to the contract but is liable on an independ- 
ent agreement to pay the amount due under the 
contract 60 



Exceptions to common-law rule. Although the 
common law rule has been long and well estab- 
lished, it is not universal, whenever a defendant 
pleads matter which goes to his personal discharge, 
or any matter that does not go to the nature of the 
writ, or pleads or gives in evidence a matter which 
is a bar to the action against himself only, and of 
which the others could not take advantage, judg- 
ment may be for such defendant and against the 
rest. 61 In such case judgment in favor of a de- 
fendant relying on a defense personal to himself 
does not discharge the other joint obligors. 62 It is 
essential to the operation of this exception that a 
defense insisted on by one of several joint debtors 
be personal to him, and not one of which the oth- 
er defendants could take advantage. 63 Personal 
defenses within the exception to the rule include 
a discharge in bankruptcy 64 or insolvency; 65 the 
defense of the statute of limitations; 66 a release 
of an obligor, with a reservation of the right to 
proceed against the remaining obligor or obligors ; 67 
personal disability to contract, 68 such as infancy, 69 



' Me. Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 136 

Me. 272. 
Mass. Dindio v. Meshaka, 175 N.E. 

170. 275 Mass. 112. 
Mich. Waller v. -Sloan, 196 N.W. 

347, 225 Mich. 600. 
Mo. Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v. 

Mullins, App., 31 S.W.2d 86. 
N.Y. Reeve v. Cromwell, 287 N.Y. 

S. 20, 227 App.Div. 32. 
Ohio. Maus v. Jones, 172 N.E. 157, 

122 Ohio St. 459. 
Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in City 

of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 'P. 418, 

431, 147 Okl. 179. 
33 C.J. p 1115 note 24. 
In actions on bills and notes see 

Bills and Notes 718 b. 
Contribution, 'between, defendants 

If defendant against whom judg- 
ment is entered is required to pay 
more than his proportionate share 
of the judgment he may seek contri- 
bution from the others. Smude v. 
Amidon, 7 N.W.2d 776, 214 Minn. 
266. 

56. Mich. Waller v. Sloan, 196 N. 
W. 347, 22 ; 5 Mich. 600. 

57. Colo. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084, 
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434. 

Mass. Mackintosh v. Chambers, 190 

N.E. 38, 285 Mass. 594. 
Mich. Penfold v. filyfield, 68 N.W. 

226, 110 Mich. 343. 
N.T. Giventer v. Antonofsky. 205 

N.Y.S. 287, 209 App.Div. 679. 
Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in City 

of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 

431, 147 Okl. 179. 
33 C.J. p 1117 note 27. 



58. Colo. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084, 
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434. 

Mass. Alfred J. Silberstein, Inc. v. 

Nash, 10 N.E.2d 65, 298 Mass. 170. 
Mo. Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v. 

Mullins, App., 31 6.W.2d 86. 
Mont. McCay v. Butler, 114 P.2d 

517, 112 Mont 249. 
Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in City of 

Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431, 

147 Okl. 179. 
Or. Hamm v. Basche, 80 P. 501, 22 

Or. 613. 
Pa. Smith v. Walat & Stutzman, 99 

Pa. Super. 147. 
33 C.J. p 1117 note 27. 

59. Mo. Thomas v. Schapeler, App., 
92 S.W.2d 982. 

Oral contracts have been except- 
ed from the rule. Townsend v. 
Heath, 103 P.2d 691, 106 Colo. 273 
Exchange Bank of Denver v. Ford, 
3 P. 449, 7 Colo. 314. 

60. Conn. Meyers v. Arm, 13 A.2d 
507, 126 Conn. 679. 

Liability of third person assuming 
indebtedness under contract see 
Contracts 520. 

61. Fla. Davis v. First Nat. Bank 
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So. 
6-33, 112 Fla. 485 Harrington v. 
Bowman, 143 <So. 651, 106 Fla. 86 
Corpus Juris cited in Jones v. 
Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 103 Flo. 745. 

Mass.- Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E.2d 

761, 304 Mass. 15 Mackintosh v. 

Chambers, 190 N.E. 38, 285 Mass. 

594. 
Pa. Baldwin v. Ely, 19-3 A. 299, 127 

Pa.-Super. 110. 
33 C.J. p 1112 note 99. 

62. Pa. Baldwin v. Ely, supra. 

82 



63. Ark. State v. Williams, 17 Ark. 
371. 

33 C.J. p 1113 note 1. 

64. Mass. Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E. 
2d 761, 304 Mass. 15. 

33 C.J. p 1113 note 2. 

In action against general and spe- 
cial partners see the C.J.S. title 
Partnership 486, also 47 C.J. p 
1316 note 21. 

65. Fla, Corpus Juris cited in 
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 105 
Fla. 745. 

33 C.J. p 1113 note . 

66. Minn. Town v. Washburn, 14 
Minn. 268, 100 Am.D. 219. 

33 C.J. p 1113 note 8 [c]. 

Recovery against defendants where 
action against codefendants is 
barred by limitations generally 
see the C.J.S. title Limitations of 
Actions 212, also 37 C.J. p 1003 
notes 73-79. 

67. Pa. Baldwin v. Ely, 193 A. 299, 
127 Pa.Super. 110. 

68. Fla. Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 
38, 103 Fla. 745. 

69. Fla. Corpus Juris cited in 
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 
103 Fla. 745. 

Mass. Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E.2d 

761, 304 Mass. 15. 
P&. Wharen v. Funk, 31 A.2d 450, 

152 Pa. Super. 133. 
3-3 C.J. p 1113 note 5. 
Invalidity of judgment as to infant 

as not rendering it void as to his 

adult codefendants see Infants 

122 a. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



35 



insanity, 70 or coverture; 71 and other like mat- 
ters. 72 

The rule has no proper application to an action 
against administrators as such on a contract alleged 
to have been made with decedent, 73 or where some 
of defendants are not served with process and do 
not appear, 74 or where the statement of claim shows 
a several liability against one defendant, and the 
action is dismissed as to the other joint defendants 
before submission to the jury. 75 Another exception 
to the rule arises when one who is an unnecessary 
or improper party is joined as a defendant. 76 

35. Tort Actions 

In tort actions Judgment ordinarily may be rendered 
for or against one or more of several defendants. 

In actions for tort against several defendants it 
has generally been held that judgment may be ren- 
dered against one or as many of defendants as the 
proof shows were guilty of the wrong, and in favor 
of those as against whom the proof fails, 77 or 
against some of defendants shown to be liable where 



plaintiff waives his right to recover against the 
others, 78 although there formerly was some au- 
thority to the effect that, in an action against two 
or more for a joint tort, recovery was required to 
be against all or none. 79 This is also true under 
codes and practice acts authorizing judgments to 
be rendered for or against one or more of several 
defendants, as considered generally supra 33 a, 
which are applicable in actions for tort, 80 as are 
rules of court to the same effect. 81 

If it appears during the course of the proceed- 
ings that a defendant is not liable, the court may 
render judgment in his favor and allow the case to 
proceed against the others, 82 and the court's dis- 
charge of some of defendants in an action charg- 
ing concurrent wrongful acts or omissions will not 
preclude judgment against the others. 83 Even after 
verdict, where a joint liability has been found to 
exist, 84 or where several damages have been given 
by the jury, 85 judgment may be rendered against 
one defendant alone. In jurisdictions where it is 
proper to grant a new trial as to part of the par- 



70. Fla. -Corpus Juris cited to 

Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 103 

Fla. 745. 

111. Aten v. Brown, 14 IlLApp. 451. 
Validity of judgment against insane 

person see Insane Persons 151 b. 
71* Fla. Corpus Juris cited to 

Jones v. Griffin, 158 So. 38, 39, 

103 Fla. 745. 
33 C.J. p 1113 note 7. 

72- Fla. <!orpus Juris cited to 
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 103 
Fla. 745. 

33 C.J. p 111* note 8. 

73. Ala, Gray v. White, 5 Ala. 490. 

74. Me. Dennett v. Chick, 2 Me. 
191, 11 AmJX 59. 

33 C.J. p 1113 note 10. 

75. 111. Wilson v. Johnson, 178 
IlLApp. 385. 

to m. Mayer' v. Brensinger, 54 N. 

B. 159, 180 111. 110, 72 Am.S.R. 

196. 
3$ C.J. P 1113 note 12. 

77. Ala. Alabama Power Co. v. 
Talmadge, 93 "So. 548, 207 Ala. 86, 
error dismissed 42 S.Ct 463, 259 
U.S. 575, 66 L.Ed. 1071. 

B.C. Ewald v. Lane, 104 F.2d 222, 
70 App.D.C. 89, certiorari denied 
Lane v. Ewald, 60 S.Ct 81, 308 U 
S. 568, 84 L.Bd. 477 Gale v. Inde- 
pendent Taxi Owners Ass'n, 84 F< 
2d 249, 65 App.D.C. $96. 

Fla. Dr. F. Phillips & Sons v. Kil- 
gore, 12 So.2d 465, 152 Fla. 578 
Stanley v. Powers, 166 -So. 843, 123 
Fla. 359 Seaboard Air Line By. 
Co. v. Ebert 1* So. 104. 

Ga. Joyce v. City of Dalton, App., 
36 S.K.2d 104. 



111. Minnis v. Friend, 19-6 N.E. 191, 
360 111. 328 Rome Soap Mfg. Co. 
v. John T. La Forge & Sons, 54 
N.B.2d 252, 322 HlJLpp. 281 Koltz 
v. Jahaaske, 38 N.B.2d 973, 312 
IlLApp. $23 Skala v. Lehon, 258 
IlLApp. 252, affirmed 175 N.B. 832, 
343 111. 602 Bunyan v. American 
Glycerin Co., 230 IlLApp. 351 Hi- 
bernian Banking Ass'n v. True, 
228 IlLApp. 194. 

Ind. Inter State Motor Freight Sys- 
tem v. Henry, 38 N.E.2d 909, 111 
Ind. App. 179 Indianapolis Trac- 
tion & Terminal Co. v. Holtsclaw, 
81 N.B. 1084, 40 Ind.App. 311. 

La. Overstreet v. Ober, 130 So. 648, 
14 La.App. 63$. 

Mich. Anderson v. Conterio, 5 N.W. 
2d 572, 303 Mich. 75 Walton v. 
Hymans, 4 N.W.2d 640, 302 Mich. 
256. 

Mo. Raleigh v. Raleigh, App., 5 S. 
W.2d 689. 

Ohio. Smith v. Fisher, App., 82 N". 
B.2d 561 Ohio Power Co. v. Fit- 
tro, 173 N.E. 35, 36 Ohio App. 186. 

Okl. Corpus Juris quoted to City of 
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 430, 
431, 147 Okl. 179. 

Tex. San Antonio Gas Co. v. Sin- 
gleton, 59 S.W. 920, 24 Tex.Civ. 
App. $41, error refused. 

33 C.J. p 1113 note 13. 

79. Tex. Taylor Water Co. v. Dil- 

lard, 29 S.W. 6-62, 9 Tex.Civ.App. 

6*7. 
79. La. Loussade v. Hartman, 16 

La, 117. 

33 C.J. p 1114 note 16 [a]. 
Prior to statutory change 
Pa. Polls v. Heizmann, 120 A. 269, 

276 Pa. 315, 27 A.L.R. 948. 

83 



80. Ala. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & 
Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 181 So. 276, 236 
Ala. 173 Pollard v. Rogers, 173 
So. 881, 234 Ala. 92 Sloss- Shef- 
field Steel & Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 
165 So. 764, 231 Ala. 511, 109 A.L. 
R. 385. 

Cal. Rocca v. Steinmetz, 208 P. 964, 
189 Cal. 42*6. 

Iowa. Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank, 
110 Iowa 537, 81 N.W. 784. 

Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in City 
of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 
431, 147 Okl. 179. 

Or. Anderson v. Maloney, 225 P. 
318, 111 Or. 84. 

Pa. Stone v. City of Philadelphia, 
15>3 A. 550, 302 Pa. 840 Gable v. 
Yellow Cab Co., 150 A. 162, 300 
Pa, 37 Carroll v. Kirk, 19 A.2d 
584, 144 Pa.Super. 211 Mullen v. 
McGeagh, 88 Pa. Super. 381 Cairns 
v. Spencer, 87 Pa.Super. 126 
Brown v. George B. Newton Coal 
Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 23. 

Wash. Eyak River Packing Co. v. 
Huglen, 255 P. 123, 143 Wash. 229, 
reheard 257 P. 638, 143 Wash. 229. 

35 C.J. p 1115 note 22. 

8L Mich. Kolehmainen v. B. B. 
Mills Trucking Co., S N.W.2d 298, 
301 Mich. 340 Barkman v. Mon- 
tague, 298 'N.W. 273, 297 Mich. 638. 

82. Cal. Rocca v. Steinmetz, 208 P. 
964, 189 Cal. 426. 

Me. Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 186 
Me. 272. 

83. Mich. Barkman v. Montague, 
298 N.W. 273, 297 Mich. 538. 

84. ni. Minnis v. Friend, 196 NJB. 
191, "360 I1L 328. 

35. iu. Koltz v. Jahaaske, 38 N.B. 
2d 973, 312 IlLApp. 628. 



35 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



ties, as considered in the CJ.S, title New Trial 
12, also 46 C.J. p 78 note 31-p 80 note 55, the court 
may grant a new trial to one or more of several 
defendants if satisfied that they were wrongly con- 
victed, and render judgment on the verdict as to 
the remainder. 86 

The common-law rule which requires judgment 
against all joint defendants or none in actions on 
contracts, as considered supra 34, has no appli- 
cation to actions for torts, 87 except where the ac- 
tion is for a negligent performance of, or a neg- 
ligent failure to perform, a duty arising out of a 
contract, in which case the rule is the same as in 
actions on contract, and, if a joint contract and lia- 
bility are alleged, a joint liability must be shown. 88 
However, where the relation of the parties is such 
that an issue found for one defendant necessarily 
inures to the benefit of his codefendant, 89 as where 
a defendant's culpability is the sole predicate for 
his codefendant's liability, 90 judgment cannot be 
entered for the former and against the latter; but 
this rule has no application where each defendant 
is charged with acts of negligence resulting in the 
injury. 91 

In jurisdictions where there is a statutory right 
to contribution between joint tort-feasors who are 
codefendants in judgment, as considered in Con- 
tribution 11 b (5), it has been held that, where 
plaintiff has consented to a voluntary nonsuit as to 
one of two defendant joint tort-feasors, it is er- 
roneous to render judgment against the other, 92 al- 
though, if the jury exculpate one of two joint 
tort-feasors sued jointly, judgment may be rendered 
against the other. 93 In an action for fraud against 



defendants jointly and severally liable therefor it is 
unnecessary for the judgment to provide that re- 
covery be first had as far as possible out of the 
defendant primarily liable where he is hopelessly 
insolvent. 94 

It has been held that the judgment should be 
against all defendants shown to be jointly liable for 
the tort; 95 and in some jurisdictions it has been 
held that judgment must be against all joint tort- 
feasors who are not discharged. 96 On the other 
hand a joint judgment against joint defendants, 
some of whom are not guilty, is erroneous; 97 but 
there is authority which holds that as to defendant 
or defendants actually liable for the tort the judg- 
ment is not invalid or improper. 98 Under some 
statutes, where the original defendants bring addi- 
tional defendants into the action, asserting that they 
are primarily liable, plaintiff is entitled to judgment 
against them the same as though they had been di- 
rectly sued by him. 99 

In an action for ejectment based on a tort, judg- 
ment may be rendered against defendants served 
who appeared, even though a default could not 
properly be entered against defendants who did 
not appear because of plaintiff's failure to comply 
with a statute requiring him to file an affidavit that 
they were not in the military service. 1 

36. Joint or Several Judgments 

a. In general 

b. Under codes and practice acts 

c. Disposition of case as to all parties; 

separate judgments 



86, 111. Pecararo v. Halberg, 92 N. 
E. 600, 246 111. 95. 

33 C.J. p 1114 note 14. 

87, in. Skala v. Lehon, 258 Ill.App. 
252, affirmed 175 N.E. 832, 343 
111. 602. 

Me. Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 136 

Me. 272. 
Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in City of 

Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 430, 

431, 147 Okl. 179. 

88, Ala. Hackney T. Perry, 44 So. 
1029, 152 Ala. 626. 

33 C.J. p 1114 note 17. 

89, Okl. Anthony v. Covington, 100 
P.2d 461, 187 Okl. 27. 

33 C.J. p 1115 note 18. 

Contract and tort natality based on 

same act 

Where liability of one defendant 
for negligence and of another for 
breach of warranty were both predi- 
cated on the same tortious act, a 
judgment against defendant sued for 
negligence and in favor of defendant 



sued for breach of warranty was 
inconsistent and -erroneous. Lang- 
san v. Loft's Inc., 25 N.Y.S.2d 318. 

90. 111. Bunyan v. American Gly- 
cerin Co., 230 Ill.App. 351. 

Okl. Anthony v. Covington, 100 P. 

2d 461, 187 Okl. 27. 
Va. Barnes v. Ashworth, 153 S.E. 

711, 154 Va. 218. 
33 C.J. p 1115 note 18 [a] (3), (4). 

91. 111. Bunyan v, American Gly- 
cerin Co., 230 Ill.App. 351. 

92. N.Y. -Dee v. Spencer, 251 N.Y. 
S. 311, 233 App.Div. 217, followed 
in 251 N.Y.S. 864, 233 App.Div. 
894. 

93. N.Y. -Price v. Byan, 173 N.E. 
907, 255 N.Y. 16, followed in 175 
N.E. 297, 265 N.Y. 524. 

94. N.Y. Martin v. Gotham Nat 
Bank, 221 N.Y.S. 661, 220 App.Div. 
541, modified on other grounds 1*62 
N.B. 91, 248 N.Y. 313, reargument 
denied 164 N.E. 565, 249 N.Y. 513. 

84 



95. La. Collins v. Huck, 109 So* 
341, 161 La. 641. 



6. Mo. Delay v. 
164 S.W.2d 154. 



Douglas, App., 



97. Fla. Joseph v. Maxwell, 104 So. 
584, 89 Fla. 396. 

98. Mo. Hatton v. Sidman, App., 
169 S.W.2d 91. 

99. Pa. Sullivan v. City of Pitts- 
burgh, 27 A.2d 270, 150 Pa.Super. 
252 Ford v. City of Philadelphia, 
24 A.2d 746, 148 Pa.Super. 195. 

Original defendant's secondary lia- 
bility immaterial 

The presence or absence of the 
original defendant's secondary lia- 
bility cannot affect the liability of 
the additional defendants to plaintiff 
as found by the jury at the trial. 
Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, 27 
A.2d 270, 150 PaJSuper. 252, 

1. Cal. B. B. Sulphur Co. v, 
Kelley. 141 -P.2d 908, 61 Cal.App.2d 
3, 



49 C. J. S. 



JUDGMENTS 



a. In General 

At common law and in the absence of statute chang- 
ing the rule a joint judgment is the only proper judg- 
ment in an action brought as a joint suit against sev- 
eral defendants; but a joint Judgment cannot be ren- 
dered against defendants whose liability is several and 
not Joint or who are not ail liable. 

At common law and in the absence of statute 
changing the rule only a joint judgment may be 
rendered in an action brought as a joint suit, 2 as an 
action ex contractu against several defendants. 3 
On the other hand, a joint judgment may not be 
rendered against defendants who are severally and 
not jointly liable, 4 or where each defendant is not 
liable to the full extent of the verdict.5 Also a 
joint judgment against two or more defendants, one 
of whom is not liable, is erroneous. 6 

In actions at common law for tort, while judg- 
ment may be entered against certain defendants, 
and in favor of others, as discussed supra 35, the 
judgment must be a joint judgment for one single 
amount against all found liable, 7 and cannot exceed 
in amount that for which judgment could have been 
rendered under a verdict returned against a partic- 
ular defendant 8 

What constitutes. In determining the character 
of a judgment as joint, several, or joint and sev- 
eral, the circumstances with respect to the case may 
be considered, 9 and recourse may be had to the 
pleadings on which the judgment is base<i 10 The 
identity of issues as between plaintiff and the vari- 



ous defendants does not determine the character of 
the judgment 11 Ordinarily it is determined by 
the nature of the liabilities or interests involved 
in the litigation, 12 and this is true, although in form 
the judgment includes several defendants under the 
form of a joint judgment. 18 Thus judgments have 
been held to be several where the liabilities of de- 
fendants were several; 14 and as joint and several 
where their liabilities were joint and several, 15 al- 
though there is other authority to the effect that 
a judgment against several defendants in an ac- 
tion on a joint and several obligation is joint and 
not joint and several as to all defendants therein. 16 
A judgment that plaintiff recover of two or more 
named defendants a specified sum of money is in 
form a joint judgment, 17 and a judgment against 
two or more named defendants, and each of them, 
constitutes a joint and several judgment 18 How- 
ever, there is authority, particularly in jurisdictions 
where by statute joint contracts have been made 
joint and several and authority given to proceed 
against one or more of those liable on a joint ob- 
ligation, to the effect that, although a judgment is 
rendered against two or more parties jointly, the 
judgment itgelf is a joint and several obligation. 19 

b. Under Codes and Practice Acts 

In general under the various codes and practice acts 
the judgment should be joint, several, or joint and sev- 
eral, according as. the liability of the defendants against 
whom judgment .Is rendered Is joint, several, or joint and 
several. 



2. Fla. Harrington v. Bowman, 148 
So. 651, 106 Fla. 8*6. 

Conformity to verdict or findings 

see infra ' 55-58. 
Joint or several judgment in action 

against: 

Executor or administrator and 
other party see Executors and 
Administrators 793. 
Principal and surety see the C.J. 
S. title Principal and Surety 
277, also 50 C.J. p 223 notes 2- 
4. 

Necessity for judgment to-be either 
for or against all plaintiffs see su- 
pra 31. 

3. Fla. Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 
107, .97 Fla. 679, followed in 
Wright v. Tatarian, 131 So. 183, 
100 Fla. 1366. 

4. Md. Union Trust Co. of Mary- 
land v. Poor & Alexander, Inc., 
177 A. 923, 168 Md. 400. 

6. M<L Union Trust Co. of Mary- 
land v. Poor & Alexander, Inc., 
supra. 

6. 111. Sergo v. Bloch, 263 Ill.App. 
198. 

7. Mass. Contakis v. Flavio, 108 N. 
E. 1045, 221 Mass. 259. 

33 C.J. p 1124 note8. 



Judgment should be joint and sever- 
al in civil action for conspiracy 
see Conspiracy 32. 

8. Mass. Brooks v. Davis, 1 N.E.2d 
17, 294 Mass. 236. 

9. Neb. Whaley v. Matthews, 287 
N.W. 205, 136 Neb. 767. 

N.T. Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity & 
Guaranty Co., 94 N.E. 601, 201 
N.T. 230. 

Judgment held not joint 

Neb. Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N. 
W. 205, 13-6 Neb. 767. 

10. Tex. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty 
Co. ,v. Richey, Civ.App,, 18 S.W-, 
2d 231, error refused. 

11. N.T. -St John v. Andrews Inst. 
for Girls, 85 N.E. 143, 192 N.T. 
882. 

12. N.T. Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity 
& Guaranty Co., 94 N.E. 601, 201 
N.T. 230. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 18. 

13. -Conn. Gruber v. Friedman, 132 
A. 395, 104 Conn. 107. 

N.T. Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity & 
Guaranty Co., 94 NJE. 601, 201 N. 
T. 230. 



14. Conn. Gruber v. Friedman, 132 
A. 395, 104 Conn. 107. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 18 [b]. 

15. Tex. U. S. Fidelity & Guaran- 
ty Co. v. Kichey, Civ.App., 18 S.W. 
2d 231, error refused. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 18 [a3 (2). 

16. Mich. Rohrabacker v. Walsh, 
135 N.W. 907, 170 Mich. 59. 

17. Neb. Farney v. Hamilton 
County, 75 N.W. 44 t 54 :Neb. 797. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 16. 

18. OkL Tucker v. Gautier, 164 P. 
2d 613. 

Double recovery not indicated 

Judgment that plaintiff recover of 
defendants, "and each of them," 
did not signify that full amount of 
recovery might be twice collected 
from defendants, but simply indicat- 
ed joint and several character of de- 
fendant's liability. Watson v. Hil- 
ton, 166 S.E. 589, 203 N.C. 574, 

19. Kan. Corpus Juris cited in 
Sloan v. Sheridan. 168 P.2d 545, 
546. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 20. 

Judgment as contract within statute 

making joint ' contracts joint and 

several see supra 5 6. 



85 



36 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



In general tinder the various codes and practice 
acts in an action against several defendants, a joint 
judgment is proper against defendants whose lia- 
bility is joint or arises out of joint conduct; 20 but 
it is improper against defendants whose liability 
is not joint, although each may be severally lia- 
ble, 21 or where the liability of defendants and the 
measure of recovery are proportional. 22 

A several judgment is not ordinarily proper 
against defendants whose liability is on a joint ob- 
ligation or other joint cause of action; 23 but such 
a judgment is proper in an action against several 
defendants who are liable on a joint and several ob- 
ligation, or on a cause of action where each de- 
fendant is liable only for his own acts, or for his 
proportionate share of the total damage, or in a 
different* amount from his codefendants*, or in any 
case where separate actions might properly have 
been maintained. 24 The test as to whether a sev- 
eral judgment may be had is whether a separate 
action could have been maintained. 26 

A joint and several judgment is proper against 
defendants whose liability is joint and several, 26 



but not against defendants who are individually 
and solely liable on different items of the total 
amount demanded. 27 

Where the items of damages are distinct, a joint 
judgment cannot be entered unless each defendant 
is liable to the full extent of plaintiffs demand or 
recovery. 28 If defendants are not all liable to the 
same extent on the liability sued on, the judgment 
may be for different amounts against them; 29 and, 
where one of the several defendants is not liable 
for all the items of damage for which recovery is 
allowed, a judgment against all defendants which 
does not segregate the damage is erroneous, 30 at 
least as to the party not liable for the full amount. 31 
However, in an action ex contractu a joint judg- 
ment has been held proper against defendants who 
are liable for the same demand; 32 and, if the ac- 
tion is on a joint contract or obligation against sev- 
eral defendants who plead and defend jointly, the 
judgment against them must be joint and not sev- 
eral. 33 

Where some defendants are liable individually, 
while others are liable only in a representative ca- 



20. Mo. Kunst v. Walker, App. f 43 
S.W.2d 886. 

Severance of actions as to several 
parties defendant see Actions 
119 b (2). 
Discovery of assets 

In action by administrators to 
discover assets, joint judgment was 
proper against defendants in joint 
possession of the concealed assets. 
Kunst v. Walker, supra. 

21. Ohio. Larson v. Cleveland Ry. 
Co., 50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St 
20. 

Pa. First Nat. Bank v. Kendrew, 
160 A. 227, 105 Pa.Super. 142. 

Wash. Argo Mfg. Co. v. Parker, 100 
P. 188, 52 Wash. 100. 

33 C.J. p 1125 notes 11, 12. 

Harmless error 

(1) Joint judgment against de- 
fendants severally and not jointly 
liable is harmless error. Decker v. 
Trilling, 24 Wis..610, 61533 C.J. P 
1126 note 13. 

(2) In action against two defend- 
ants who are each liable on different 
causes sued on, one a tort and the 
other an agreement of indemnity 
against damages from the tort, a 
joint judgment against them for 
an amount not in excess of what 
they would have been liable for if 
sued in separate actions is not prej- 
udicial to the rights of either so 
as to warrant a reversal. Adams v. 
National Automobile Ins. Co., 133 P. 
2d 657, 56 Cal.App.2d 905. 

22. Mass. Foote v. Cotting, 80 N. 
B. 600, 195 Mass. 55, 15 L.R.A.,N. 
3., -693. 



23. Colo. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084, 
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434. 

Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in City of 
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431, 
147 Okl. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1117 note 27, P 1124 note 
10. 

Joint or several judgment in action 
against stockholders for corporate 
debt see Corporations 702. 

24. Gal. Bakersfleld Impr. Co. v. 
Bakersfield Theater Co., 181 P. 851, 
40 Cal.App. 703. 

33C.J. p 1125 note 11. 
Double recovery 

Judgment against treasurer and 
surety for treasurer's failure to pay 
unsecured deposit in insolvent state 
bank and against bank and banking 
commissioner for such deposit un- 
der guaranty depository law was 
held not erroneous as allowing dou- 
ble recovery. Bolton v. City of De 
Leon, Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W. 213. 

25. Okl. Corpus Juris guoted in 
City of Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P. 
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1118 note 28, p 1125, note 
11 [a]. 

26. Cal. Gist v. Security Trust & 
Savings Bank, 24 P.2d 153, 218 
Cal. 581. 

Tex. Murchison v. Ballard, Civ, 
App., 178 S.W.2d 554, error re- 
fused Dunning v. Badger, Civ. 
App., 74 S.W.2d 151, error dis- 
missed Danciger v. Smith, Civ. 
App., 286 S.W. 635, error refused 
289 S.W. 679, 116 Tex. 269, affirm- 

86 



ed 48 S.Ct. 344, 276 U.S. 542, 72 

L.Bd. 691. 

In action against carriers for in- 
Jury to property where there was 
evidence of damage while it was 
in possession of either one of de- 
fendants, and neither offered ex- 
planation of how or when damage 
occurred, judgment against them 
jointly and severally was without 
error. St Louis, S. F. & T. By. Co. 
v. J. G. Henderson Cut Stone Co., 
Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W. 603. 
Solidary judgment 

In an action against several de- 
fendants on an obligation in solido, 
a solidary judgment against them 
is proper. E. George Rogers & Co. 
v. Black, La.App., 155 So. 403. 

27. Tex. ^Btna Casualty & Surety 
Co. v. State for Use and Benefit 
of City of Dallas, Civ.App., 8-6 
S.W.2d 826, error dismissed. 

28. Vt. Murray v. Mattison, 32 A. 
479, 67 Vt. 553. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 14. 

29. Or. Closset v. Portland Amuse- 
ment Co., 293 P. 720, 134 Or. 414. 

30. Cal. Bloom v. Coates, 214 P. 
260, 190 Oal. 458. 

31. N.M. Niblack v. Seaberg Hotel 
Co., 76 P.2d 1156, 42 N.M. 281. 

32. Tex. Weimer v. Prince & 
Prince, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 666. 

33. Colo. Beatty v. Resler, 118 P. 
2d 1084, 108 Colo. 434. 

u Byrd v. Babin, 200 So. 294, 196 
La. 902. 
33 C.J. p 1124 note 8. 



49 O.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



36 



pacity, the judgment against them should be sever- 
al 34 or joint and several. 35 In an action to impose 
liability on heirs or devisees of a decedent for a 
liability of decedent, the judgment should be sev- 
eral against each defendant for the amount received 
by him from decedent, not to exceed the sum to 
which plaintiff is entitled ; 8 and it has been' held 
proper to make the judgment collectable in full from 
any of several defendants who received that amount 
or more from the estate and to limit it as to de- 
fendants who received less to the amount each re- 
ceived. 3 ? 

Under statutes in Louisiana providing therefor, 
a joint judgment against several defendants in a 
suit on a joint obligation must be against each de- 
fendant separately for his proportion of the debt, 38 
which is determined by the number of obligors; 39 
and, where only one of several joint obligors is 
sued, 40 or the court erroneously rejects plaintiffs 
demand against all the joint obligors, except one, 41 
the judgment against him must be for his aliquot 
portion of the obligation and not the entire amount 
thereof. 

Actions ex delictu. In an action of tort against 



several defendants, plaintiff is entitled to a joint 
judgment if, and only if, 4 * he shows a joint tort 43 
or single cause of action against them, 44 even 
though one of defendants owed plaintiff a higher 
degree of care than did the other; 45 and, if de- 
fendants plead jointly, and a joint verdict is given 
against them, the judgment must be joint and not 
several. 46 It has also been held in some jurisdic- 
tions that defendant tort-feasors must be in pari 
delicto as to the tortious act and each responsible 
for the entire damage for a joint judgment against 
them to be proper; 47 and, where a primary liabil- 
ity for the injury rests on one defendant and a con- 
structive or secondary liability on another defend- 
ant, and their breaches of duty to plaintiff are not 
through concert of action or independent but con- 
current action, a joint judgment may not be ren- 
dered against them. 48 

If the liability of defendants is joint and sev- 
eral, the judgment should be joint and several ; 4d 
but a joint and several judgment should not be ren- 
dered unless it is established that defendants were 
joint tort-feasors, 50 and is improper where it ap- 
pears that defendants are not liable on the same 
torts but are solely and independently liable on dif- 



34. Ky.-^Gray v. McDowell, 5 T.B. 

Mon. 501. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 15. 
3&i Cal. Gist v. Security Trust & 

Savings Bank, 24 P.2d 153, 218 

Cal. 581. 

36. Ky. Ransdell v. Threlkeld, 4 
Bush 347. 

33 C.J. p 112S note 11 [h] (1), (2). 

37. Ky. Clark's Adm'x v. Callahan, 
288 S.W. 301, 216 Ky. 674. 

38. La. Loussade v. Hartman, 16 
La. 117 Hagedorn v. Klotz, App., 
185 So. 658 Simon v. Selber, 1*30 
So. 45, 14 La.App. 642. 

39. La. Loussade v. Hartman, 16 
La. 117. 

Obligor's portion. 

Each obligor answers for an equal 
part of the debt, unless the parties 
have expressed a different intention. 
EDagerdorn v. Klotz, La.App., 185 
So. 658. 

40. La. Hagedorn v. Klotz, supra. 
Plaintiff must show other obligors 

where he sues joint obligor sepa- 
rately, in order that the judgment 
may fix the proportion of the debt 
for which each defendant is con- 
demned. Hagerdorn v. Klotz, supra. 

41. La. Simon v. Selber, 190 So. 
645, 14 La.App. 642. 

42. Fla. Gulf Refining Co. v. Wil- 
kinson, 114 So. 503, 94 Fla. 664. 

33 C.J. p 112*6 note 24. 
lEssential requirement* 

A "joint judgment" against two or 



more tort-feasors is proper only 
where, because of their relationship, 
concert of action, or independent but 
concurrent action, each is vicarious- 
ly responsible for wrongful act of 
the others to extent of entire dam- 
age. Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 
50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St. 20. 
Permissive joinder JinmtHoieut 

The permissive joinder of defend- 
ants is not enough to warrant a 
"joint judgment" against tort-fea- 
sors unless they are joint tort-fea- 
sors. Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 
supra. 

43. N.J. Mogab v. Antrim Motor 

Co., 143 A. 864, 7 N.XMisc. 15. 
Pa. Moraski v. 'Philadelphia Rapid 

Transit Co., 142 A. 276, 293 Pa. 

224. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 2-3. 
Immaterial injury by individual 

Where seepage causing injury 
came principally from canal operat- 
ed for joint benefit of irrigation dis- 
tricts, joint judgment was proper, 
although slight damage may have 
been caused by seepage from reser- 
voir owned by only one district 
Ketcham v. Modesto Irr. Dist., 26 P. 
2d 87, 135 CaLApp. 180. 

Concert of action, by tort-feasors 
makes joint judgment against them 
proper. Fahrer v. Blumenthal, 190 
A. 206, 125 Pa.Super. 568. 
Joint employer 

In action against two companies 
for injuries caused by person who 

87 



was employee of both, judgment 
holding both companies liable in 
solido was proper. Anderson v. 
George A. Hormel & Co., 136 So. 906, 
18 La.App. 398. 
44. Ohio. Larson v. Cleveland Ry. 

-Co., 50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St 

20. 

46. Pa. Moraski v. Philadelphia 
Rapid Transit Co., 142 A. 276, 293 
Pa. 224. 

46. Fla. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. 
v. Ebert, 138 So. 4, 102 Fla. 641. 

33 C.J. p 1127 note 28. 

Judgment held against join* tort- 

feasors 

Findings showing that defendants 
by themselves and agents acted so 
negligently that plaintiff had judg- 
ment showed judgment against joint 
tort-feasors. Salter v. Lombard!, 8 
P.2d 38, 116 CaLApp. 602. 

47. Ohio. Larson v. Cleveland Ry. 
Co., 50 N.B.2d 163, 142 Ohio St 
20. 

48. Ohio. Larson v. Cleveland Ry. 
Co., Supra. 

Joint judgment held improper 
Ohio. Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 
supra. 

49. Cal. Phipps v. Superior Court 
In and for Alameda County, 89 P. 
2d 698, 32 CaLApp. 2 d 371. 

La. Williams v. Pelican Natural 
Gas Co., 175 So. 28, 187 La. 462. 

60. Tex. American Mortg. Corpo- 
ration v. Dunnam, Civ.App., 59 S. 
W.2d 1095, error dismissed. 



36 



JUDGMENTS 



49 O.J.S. 



ferent torts alleged. 51 A joint judgment has been 
held proper against defendants, each of whom is 
responsible for the same sum of money, 52 or whose 
independent tortious acts produced a single injury, 
objections to the trial in one proceeding having 
been waived. 58 

Since joint tort-feasors are each individually lia- 
ble to the party injured for the full extent of the 
damage done, and not only for a proportionate part, 
as considered in the CJ.S. title Torts 34, also 62 
CJ. p 1131 notes 52, S3, ordinarily the judgment 
cannot segregate or apportion the liability of the 
joint tort-feasors; 54 but it must be in one amount 55 
and jointly and severally 56 against each and all of 
defendants against whom a joint liability is estab- 
lished. 57 However, any statutory limitation of lia- 
bility applicable to any defendant, as distinguished 
from the full liability of other defendants, may and 
should be incorporated in the judgment entered on 
the verdict; 58 and, where a joint and several lia- 
bility is established as to some of the defendants 
and a separate liability for only a portion of the to- 
tal against others, the judgment may run against 
the various defendants in the amounts and accord- 
ing to the liabilities established. 59 Where the lia- 



bility of defendant tort-feasors is direct and sev- 
eral, as well as joint, a judgment for different 
amounts against the various defendants has been 
held not improper. 60 

If the jury, without fixing the total amount of 
plaintiffs recovery, returns several verdicts or in 
one verdict assesses each defendant separately, it 
has been held that, if the same Amount wa s assessed 
against each defendant, a joint judgment should be 
entered against all defendants for that amount, not 
the total, 61 or, if different amounts were assessed 
against the various defendants, plaintiff may enter 
a joint judgment against all defendants for the 
largest amount found against any of them. 62 There 
is other authority, however, which holds that, where 
separate verdicts for different amounts are re- 
turned against joint tort-feasors, the lesser amount 
being against defendant who actively committed the 
wrong and on whose culpability the other defend- 
ant's liability is predicated, the judgment should be 
for such lesser amount 63 It has also been held 
that, in an action on a joint tort, if the verdict 
assesses each defendant separately for different 
amounts, judgment cannot be rendered against all 
the defendants for the total of the different 
amounts. 64 



51. Wis. Hall v. Frankel, 197 N. 
W. 820, ia3 Wis. 247. 

52. Ga.- Regal Textile Co. v. Fell, 6 
S.E.2d 908, 189 Ga. 581. 

Corporation and stockholders 

Joint judgment against corpora- 
tion and stockholder or officer who 
appropriated all of corporation's as- 
sets for amount of overpayment 
made to corporation is proper. 
Regal Textile Co. y. Fell, supra. 

53. Mo. Stein v. Rainey, 286 S.W. 
63, 315 Mo. 535. 

54. Cal. Phipps v. Superior Court 
in and for Alameda County, 89 P. 
2d 698, 32 Cal.App,2d 371 Curtis 
v. San (Pedro Transp. Co., 62 P.2d 
528, 10 Cal.App.2d 547, 

111. Koltz y. Jahaaske, 38 N.E.2d 

973, 312 IlLApp. 62-3. 
Mo. Polkowski v. fit Louis Public 

Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229 

Mo.App. 24. 
Tenn. Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W. 

2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369. 
33 C.J. P 1127 note 30. 

55. 111. Koltz v. Jahaaske, <38 N.E. 
2d 973, <312 IlLApp. 623. 

Mo. Brown v. Reorganization Inv. 
Co., 166 S.W.2d 476, 350 Mo. 407 
Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wal- 
lace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 1049, 
328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930 Delay 
v. Douglas, App.,' 164 S.W.2d 154 
Polkowski v. St. Louis Public 
Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229 Mo. 
App. 24. 



Tenn. Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W. 

2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369. 
Tex. Callihan v. White, Civ.App., 

139 S.W.2d 129. 

56. Mass. Gross-Loge Des Deut- 
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des 
Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson, 
17 N.E.2d 316, 301 Mass. '332. 

Tex. Callihan v. White, Civ.App., 

139 S.W.2d 129. 
Double liability not imposed 

Decree requiring defendant part- 
ner and an attaching creditor to pay 
value of partnership assets wrong- 
fully attached did not amount to 
imposition of double liability. Boy- 
er v. Bowles, 37 N.E.2d 489, 310 
Mass. 134. 

57. Mass. Gross-Loge Des Deut- 
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des 
Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson, 
17 N.B.2d -316, 301 Mass. 332. - 

Mo. Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. 

Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W. 

2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 

930. 
Tenn, Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W. 

2d -379. 27 Tenn.App. 369. 
Tex. Burd v. San Antonio Southern 

Ry. Co., Com.App., 261 S.W. 1021. 

58. Cal. Sparks v. Berntsen, 121 
P.2d 497, 19 Cal.2d 308-^Phipps v. 
Superior Court in and for Alameda 
County, 89 P..2d 698, 32 Cal.App. 
2d <371. 

59. Mass. Gross-Loge * Des Deut- 
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des 

83 



Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson, 
17 N.E.2d 316, 301 Mass. 332. 
GO. Cal. Guberman v. Weiner, 51 
P.2d 1141, 10 Cal.App.2d 401. 

61. N.T. Farber v. Demino, 173 N. 
E. 223, 254 N.T. 363, followed in G. 
A. Baker & Co. v. Polygraphic Co. 
of America, 193 N.B. 265, 265 N.T. 
447, reargument denied 193 N.E. 
294, 265 N.T. 508. 

62. Cal. Curtis v. San Pedro 
Transp. Co., 52 P.2d 528, 10 Cal. 
App.2d 547. 

N.T. Berber v. Demino, 173 N.E. 
k 223, 254 If.T. 363, followed in G. A. 
Baker & Co. v. Polygraphic Co. of 
America, 193 N.E. 265, 265 N.T. 
447, reargument denied 193 N.E. 
294, 2-65 N.T. 508 Polsey v. Wal- 
dorf-Astoria, 214 N.T.S. 600, 216 
App.Div. 86. 
33 C.J. p 1127 note 31. 

On consolidation for trial of sep- 
arate actions against master and 
servant for tort, the judgment 
against each defendant should be 
for the highest of different amounts 
assessed against the different de- 
fendants by the jury. Kinsey v. 
William Spencer & Son Corporation, 
300 N.T.S. 391, 165 Misc. 143, affirm- 
ed 8 N.T.S.2d 529, 255 App.Div. 995, 
affirmed 22 N.E.2d 168, 281 N.T. 601. 

63. Ark. Wear-tJ-Well Shoe Co. v. 
Armstrong, 3 S.W.2d 698, 176 Ark. 
592. 

64. Miss. Gillespie v. Olive Branch 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



36 



Under some statutes several judgments may be 
rendered against joint tort-feasors for separate or 
proportionate amounts, 65 at least where defendants 
have severed in their defense, and separate verdicts 
have been found against them. 6 ^ 

In ejectment it has been held that, if there are 
several defendants, there may be a joint judgment 
against all, 67 although they are severally in exclu- 
sive possession of different parts of the premises, 
no request for a several judgment being made; 68 
but there is other authority to the effect that a joint 
judgment is not* proper against defendants who oc- 
cupy or claim separate and distinct portions of the 
realty involved, 69 and that, if plaintiff is not re- 
quired to elect which of several defendants in sep- 
arate possession he will proceed against, judg- 
ment may be rendered against each. 70 Where de- 
fendants plead jointly in trespass for mesne profits 
but separate verdicts are found, there may be a 
judgment against one and nolle prosequi as to the 



other. 71 Where, however, one defendant enters 
subsequent to another it is error, in a joint action 
of ejectment and for mesne profits, to render a 
joint judgment against both from the time of the 
entry of the latter. 72 

c. Disposition of Case as to All Parties; Sep- 
arate Judgments 

At common law and under statutes so providing only 
one final Judgment, which must dispose of the case as 
to all the parties. Is proper In an action; but, under 
permissive statutes, separate judgments, may be ren- 
dered at the same time or different times against the 
various defendants in actions in which several Judg- 
ments are proper. 

At common law, and in the absence of statute 
changing the rule, and under statutes expressly so 
providing, only one final judgment may be entered 
in an action, as discussed infra 65, which must 
completely dispose of the whole case as to all the 
parties. 73 The rule is applicable in tort actions 74 



Building & Lumber Co., 164 So. 42, 
174 Miss. 154. 

65. Oa. Gormley v. Slicer, 172 S. 
E. 21, 178 Ga. 85, answer conform- 
ed to 172 S.E. 575, 48 Ga.App. 177. 

33 C.J. p 1127 note 32. 

Widow and heirs of tortf easor 

Judgment against widow and heirs 
of deceased tort-feasor should be 
against each separately for his pro- 
portion of damages, but it may be 
against them in solido for costs. ' 
Hunter v. Laurent, 104 So. 747, 158 
La. 874. 
Counterclaim in favor of defendant 

Where defendants are all liable 
for full amount of damages estab- 
lished and one defendant is enti- 
tled to judgment on a counterclaim 
against plaintiff, Judgment against 
all defendants for full amount of 
damages established will be award- 
ed plaintiff, and also judgment will 
be entered against plaintiff in favor 
of the defendant entitled to the 
counterclaim for the amount there- 
of. Bandych v. Ross, 26 N.Y.S.2d 
830. 

66. Tex. Rowan v. Daniel, 49 S.W. 
686, 20 Tex.Civ.App. 321. 

33 C.J. .p 1127 note 33. 

67. Dal. Ellis v. Jeans, 26 CaL 272. 

68. CaL Ellis v. Jeans, supra, 

69. Ind. Kennedy v. Christian, 2 
Ind. 503. 

70. Mo. Norton v. Reed, 161 S.W. 
842, 253 Mo. 236. 

71. Pa. Chambers v. Lapsley, 7 
Pa. 24. 

72. Fla, Ashmead v. Wilson, 22 
Fla, 255. 

73. Fla. Merchants' & Mechanics' 
Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 94 Fla, 



759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1, 
98 Fla. 759. 

Mo. Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. 
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 
1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930 
Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389 State 
ex rel. Cunningham v. Haid, 40 
S.W.2d 1048, 328 Mo. 208 Ex 
parte Fowler, 275 S.W. 529, 310 
Mo. 339 Baker v. St. Louis, 88 
S.W. 74, 189 Mo. 375 Hatton v. 
Sidman, App., 169 S.W.Sd 91 
A. M. Legg Shoe Co. v. Brown 
Leather Co., - App., 249 S.W. 147. 
Tex. Southern Pac. Co. v. Ulmer, 
Com. App., 28-6 S.W. 193 Edmond- 
son v. Carroll, Civ.App., 134 S.W. 
2d 378, error dismissed, judgment 
correct Texas Life Ins. Co. v. 
Miller, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 600 
Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ.App., 70 
S.W.2d 203. 
33 C.J. p 1128 note 86. 
Retention of separate character for 
purposes of judgment of actions 
tried together see the C.J.S. title 
Trial 6, also 64 C.J. p 37 note 
81. 

Single or separate judgment in con- 
solidated action see Actions 113 
a (5). 

Defendant is entitled to a judg- 
ment that will finally settle the 
claims of all plaintiffs and bind all 
parties, so that no suit may there- 
after be made on the same cause 
of action. Caniano v. Dependable 
Amusement Co., 8 A.2d 830, 123 N.J. 
Law 419. 

Invalidity as to person* not parties 
Invalidity of portion of judgment 
purporting to determine rights of 
persons not parties to the action 
would not affect part dealing with 
defendants who were before the 



court so as to render it interlocu- 
tory and not final. Wood v. Gulf 
Production Co., Tex.Civ.App., 100 
S.W.2d 412. 

Judgment held to dispose of case as 
to all parties 

(1) Generally. 

Mo. Lochmoeller v. Kiel, App., 137 

S.W.2d 625. 
Tex, Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ.App., 

70 S.W.2d 203 State v. Harvey, 

Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 82. 

(2) A judgment which disposed of 
all parties named in amended plead- 
ings on which the trial was had was 
a final judgment, even though it 
failed to dispose of parties named 
in supplemental pleadings who were 
dismissed from the cause by failure 
to name them in the amended plead- 
ings subsequently filed. Brennan v. 
Greene, Tex,Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 528, 
error refused. 

74. Cal. Phipps v. Superior Court 
in and for Alameda County, 89 
P.2d 698, 32 Cal.App.2d 371. 

Ind. Indianapolis Traction & Ter- 
minal Co. v. Holtsclaw, 81 N.B. 
1084. 40 Ino^App. 311. 

Mo. Brown v. Reorganization Inv. 
Co., 166 S.W.2d 476, 350 Mo'. 407 
Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wal- 
lace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 1049, 
328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.K. 930 Pol- 
kowskl v. St. Louis Public Service 
Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229 Mo.App. 
24. 

Pa, MacHolme v. Cochenour, 167 
A. 647, 109 Pa.Super. 563. 

Tenn. Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W. 
2d -879, 27 Tenn.App. 569. 

One Judgment record 
There can be but one judgment 

record which must include both the 

judgment in favor of plaintiff 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



against joint tort-feasors, 75 and in actions on joint 
and several obligations which plaintiff has elected 
to enforce as a joint obligation. 76 It applies, even 
though the rights or liabilities of a particular de- 
fendant or defendants appear from the proceedings 
or are determined prior to the completion of the 
case, 77 where the cause of action is joint and sev- 
eral and defendants answer jointly, 78 and however 
independent of each other the respective defenses 
of the various defendants may be. 79 Each suit 
which may be brought on the individual liability 
of a number of persons jointly and severally liable 
on an obligation constitutes a separate cause within 
the rule against more than one final judgment in 
an action. 8 ** 

Judgment should be entered as to all the defend- 
ants. 81 If a final judgment does not dispose of the 
case as to all the defendants, it is erroneous; 82 
and in spme instances it has been held that a judg- 
ment which does not do so is not a final judg- 



ment 83 but remains under the control of the court. 84 
However, it has been held that in tort actions such 
a judgment against some only of defendants is at 
most a harmless irregularity, even as to defendants 
against whom alone it is rendered. 85 An addi- 
tional judgment entered against other defendants 
after final judgment was entered against a default- 
ing defendant has been held to be merely errone- 
ous and voidable, and not void. 86 It is unnecessary 
for the judgment specifically to dispose of the rights 
of all the parties, but it is sufficient if the rights 
of those not specifically disposed of are disposed of 
by implication. 87 

Ordinarily the entry of judgment against one or 
more joint defendants in jurisdictions where only 
one final judgment in an action is proper operates 
as a discontinuance of the case as to all the others, 
and merges the cause of action in the judgment, 
preventing further prosecution of it against the oth- 
ers in the same or subsequent actions. 88 Thus, if 



against defendants found liable and 
that in favor of defendants found 
not liable. Hundhausen v. Bond, 36 
Wis. 29. 
75. Mo. Barr v. Nafziger Baking 

Co.. 41 : S.W.2d 559, 328 Mo. 423. 
78. Pla. Merchants' & Mechanics' 

Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla. 

759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1, 98 

Fla. 759. 

77. Cal. Hanna v. De Garmo, 73 P. 
830, 140 Cal. 172. 

33 C.J. p 1128 note 36 [a], [d]. 

78. N.Y. Reade v. Halpin, 167 N. 
Y.S. 482, 180 App.Div. 161. 

79. Tex. Wooters v. Kauffman, 3 
S.W. 465, 67 Tex 488 Kline v. 
Power, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 617 
Texas Cities Gas Co. v. Dickens, 
Civ.App. t 133 S.W.2d 810. 

80. Tex. Comer v. Brown, Com. 
App., 285 S.W. 807. 

81. Cal. Rubin v. Platt Music Co., 
268 P. 396, 92 Cal.App. 203. 

82. Mo. -Cox v. Frank L. Schaab 
Stove & Furniture Co., 58 -S.W.2d 
700, -332 Mo. 492, transferred, see, 
App., -67 S.W.2d 790 Strawhun v. 
Farrar, App., 296 S.W. 191 Crow 
v. Crow, 100 S.W. im, 124 Mo. 
App. 120, 

33 C.J. p 1128 note 37. 
Oodefandant'g plea in issue 

Judgment against one in action on 
note against defendants jointly, tak- 
en while other's plea of payment 
was on file, was erroneous. Mer- 
chants' & Mechanics' Bank v. Sam- 
ple, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla. 759, rehear- 
ing denied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla. 7-69. 

83. Mo. State v. Canterbury, 101 
S.W. 678, 124 Mo.App. 241. 

Tex. Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex. 613 
Gathings T. Robertson, Com. 



App., 276 S.W. 218 Pfeifer v. 
Johnson, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 203. 

84. Tex. Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex. 
613 Gathings v. Robertson, Civ. 
App., 264 S.W. 173, reversed on 
other grounds, Com.App., 276 S.W. 
218. 

85. Me. Corpus Juris cited in 
Hincks Coal Co. v. Milan, 193 A. 
243, 245, 135 Me. 203. 

Mo. Jackson v. City of Maiden, 

App., 72 S.W.2d 850. 
33 C.J. p 1128 note 39. 
Beason for role 

There is no contribution between 
tort-feasors. Davis v. Taylor, 41 
111. 40533 C.J. p 1128 note 40. 

86. Fla. Merchants' & Mechanics' 
Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla. 
759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1, 98 
Fla. 759. 

87. Tex. Texas Life Ins. Co. v. 
Miller, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 600 
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. <Pool, 
Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 492, error 
dismissed. 

&t action "by husband and wife 

Judgment for wife alone for per- 
sonal injuries to her is final, being 
against husband by necessary im- 
plication. Southern Pac. Co. v. Ul- 
mer, Tex.Civ.App., 282 S.W. 305, af- 
firmed, Com. App., 286 S.W. 193. 
Judgment held by implication 

(1) Generally. Miller v. Texas 
Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 123 S. 
W.2d 756, error refused. 

(2) There was in effect a judg- 
ment for defendant bank, the judg- 
ment entry showing that complaint 
was amended by striking It out as 
defendant, leaving only an individual 
defendant, and judgment rendered 
being against him alone. Richard- 

90 



son v. Stinson, 100 So. 209, 211 Ala. 
254. 

(3) Where subject matter in con- 
troversy is awarded to some of par- 
ties, fact that one or more of them 
get nothing is tantamount to judg- 
ment against each of them. Roe- 
denbeck Farms v. Broussard, 127 S. 
W.2d 168, 133 Tex. 12-6, appeal dis- 
missed 60 S.Ct. 145, 308 U.S. -514, 84 
L.Ed. 4*38, and Christie v. Broussard, 
60 -S.Ct. 145, 308 U.S. 514, 84 L.Ed. 
438 Whitmire v. Powell, 125 S.W. 
889, 103 Tex. 232 Pfeifer v. John- 
son, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 203. 

(4) Effect of judgment against 
only one defendant is to hold others 
not liable. Obermeier v. Mortgage . 
Co. Holland-America, 259 P. 1064, 
123 Or. 469, modified on other 
grounds 260 P. 1099, 123 Or. 469, 
costs retaxed 262 P. 261, 123 Or. 469. 

88. Miss. Daves v. Mahorner, 41 

Miss. 552. 
N.J. Coles v. McKenna, 76 A. 344, 

80 N.XLaw 48 Turk v. Leitner, 

194 A. 619, 15 N.J.Misc. '664. 
33 C.J. p 1129 note 42. 

Continuation of cause to final 
judgment, with concurrence of all 
parties except those whose pleas of 
privilege to be sued in the county of 
their residence had been sustained, 
amounted to abandonment of cause 
of action against them and their 
dismissal from suit. Brown v. Gor- 
man Home Refinery, Tex.Civ.App., 
276 S.W. 787, affirmed Comer v. 
Brown, Com. App., 285 S.W. 307. 
In tort actions 

A separate judgment against one 
or more of several defendants 
amounts to an informal dismissal 
of the action as to the other defend- 
ants. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co, v. 



49 O.J1S. 



JUDGMENTS 



36 



final judgment is entered against a defaulting de- 
fendant, 8 ^ or against a defendant who admits his 
liability on certain items, 90 it is improper to proceed 
with the trial and render another and additional 
judgment against other defendants. 

If the rights or liabilities of a. particular defend- 
ant or defendants appear from the proceedings or 
are determined prior to the completion of the case, 
final judgment as to such defendant or defendants 
will not be entered in the action at that time, but 
it will be held in abeyance until proper disposition 
of the entire cause has been determined when final 
judgment as to all the parties will be entered. 91 If, 
in such case, however, plaintiff desires to take judg- 
ment against defendants whose liability has been 
made to appear, he should obtain a severance of the 
action into two actions, enter judgment in one, and 
proceed with the other to judgment against the 
defendants in that action, as discussed in Actions 
119 b (2) ; and, if judgment is entered against one 
of the parties prior to severance, plaintiff must ob- 
tain a vacation of the judgment and severance of 
the action before he may proceed with the action 



and obtain judgment against the other defendant 
or defendants* 9 ^ 

Separate and distinct judgments cannot be ren- 
dered against defendants sued jointly, 93 even where 
the action is on a contract which is both joint and 
several. 94 Where several defendants are all liable, 
but for different amounts, plaintiff must elect or 
the court order which of them shall be discharged. 95 
In such case judgment should not be entered against 
some only of the several defendants, unless plaintiff 
has previously discontinued against the other de- 
fendant or defendants. 96 

Wlwre statutes authorise separate judgments. 
Separate and distinct judgments may be rendered 
against the several defendants under statutes which 
provide that more than one judgment or separate 
judgments may be rendered in the same cause, 97 
or that, when a several judgment is proper, judg- 
ment may be given for or against one or more of 
defendants, 98 or that judgment may be rendered 
against any of defendants, severally, when plaintiff 
would be entitled to a judgment against such de- 
fendants if the action had been against them sev- 



Evert, 138 So. 4, 102 Fla. 64118 O. 

J. p 1166 note 4433 C.J. p 1129 

note 41. 

39. Colo. Exchange Bank of Den- 
ver v. Ford, 8 P. 449, 7 Colo. 314. 

Fla. Merchants' & Mechanics' Bank 
v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla. 759, 
rehearing- denied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla. 
769. 

N.J.Coles v. McKenna, 76 A. 344, 
80 N.J.Law 48 Turk v. Leitner, 
194 A. 619, 15 N.J.Misc. 664. 

Right to enter judgment against 
thos* defendants only who have 
defaulted see infra 5 191. 

90. Vt. F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Mor- 
rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt 22. 

Trustee of codefendant 

Judgment is unauthorized against 
trustee of codefendant against whom 
Judgment on remaining items is un- 
authorized. F. S. Fuller & Co. v. 
Morrison, supra. 
Subsequent procedure 

Oodefendant's motion to dismiss 
action as against him should be 
granted and judgment entered in 
his favor to recover his costs, since 
jurisdiction of court over action is 
exhausted. F. S. Fuller & Co. v. 
Morrison, supra. 

91. N.T. Bacon v. Comstock, 11 
How.Pr. 197, 199. 

83 C.J. p 1128 note 86 [a], [dj. 

Right to enter interlocutory judg- 
ment of default where some only 
of defendants default see infra 
191. 

92. H.Y. Kriser v. Bodgers, 18-6 N. 



Y.S. 316, 195 App.Div. 894 Circle 
Cab Corporation, v. Rizzuto, 295 N. 
T.S. 185, 162 Misc. 547 Donner v. 
White, 268 N.Y.S. 56, 149 Misc. 709. 
Bight of final judgment In each of 
separate actions after severance 
see Actions S 122. 

93. Ind. Indianapolis Traction & 
Terminal Co. v. Holtsclaw, 81 N. 
E. 1084, 40 Ind.App. -311. 

Md. Union Trust Co. of Maryland 

v. Poor & Alexander, Inc., 177 A. 

923, 168 Md. 400. 
Pa. MacHolme y. Cochenour, 167 A. 

647, 109 Pa.Super. 563. 
Tenn. Ponegan y. Beasley, 181 S. 

W.2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369. 
Vt. F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Morrison, 

169 A. 9, 106 Vt 22 Metropolitan 

Washing Machine Co. v. Morris, 

39 Vt 393. 
33 C.J. p 1124 note 98. 

94. Mass. New York Trust Co. v. 
Brewster, 134 N.E. 616, 241 Mass. 
155. 

33 C.J. p 1124 note 99. 

96. Vt. F. S. Fuller & Co. y. Mor- 
rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt. 22 Mc- 
Kane y. Gordon & Hoar, 81 A. 637, 
85 Vt. 253 Powers v. Thayer, 30 
Vt. 361. 
Election shown 

Verdict for specified total sum and 
apportioning specific amount against 
each of several defendants does not 
authorize separate judgment against 
each defendant, and plaintiff by 
marking satisfied the verdict as to a 
defendant who paid the amount as-. 

91 



sessed against her elected to have 
judgment entered against such de- 
fendant and hence judgments as to 
the others could not stand. Mac- 
Holme y. Cochenour, 167 A. 647, 109 
Pa. Super. 563. 

96. Mass. Brooks y. Davis, 1 NJB3. 
2d 17, 294 Mass. 236. 

97. HI. Kulesza y. Alliance Print- 
ers & Publishers, 47 N.E.2d 547, 
318 IlLApp. 2-31 Shaw v. Court- 
ney, 46 N.E.2d 170, 317 Ill.App. 
422, affirmed 53 N.E.2d 432, 385 
111. 559. 

Miss. Aven v. Singleton, 96 So. 165, 

132 Miss. 256. 

Dismissal, discontinuance, nolle 
proseaui, or nonsuit as to some of 
several codefendants see Dismiss- 
al and Nonsuit 30-32, 52, 77 a. 
Actions in which statute applicable 
Statute authorizing more than one 
judgment in action on contract 
against several defendants is Inap- 
plicable to action against several 
defendants based on theory of tort 
liability. Springer Transfer Co. . y. 
Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo Coun- 
ty, 94 P.2d 977, 43 N.M. 444. 
On New trial 

Separate judgments may be enter- 
ed against several defendants on 
new trial after judgment entered 
against them as a unit has been set 
aside. Fredrich v. Wolf, 50 N.B.2d 
755, -383 I1L 638. 

98. Ariz. Bracker Stores v. Wil- 
son, 103 F.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403. 



36 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



erally." Also, where the statutes provide therefor, 
the court, in its discretion, may render judgment 
against one or more of several defendants, leaving 
the action to proceed against the others, whenever 
a several judgment may be proper. 1 A statute au- 
thorizing judgment against fewer than all of sev- 
eral defendants sued does not authorize the entry 
of separate and distinct judgments against the vari- 
ous defendants. 2 

Under statutes authorizing separate judgments, 
where it appears, either from the proceedings or 
during the progress of the case, that a several judg- 
ment is proper as to one or more defendants, the 
court may render a judgment for or against him 
or them, in advance of the final trial, leaving the 
action to proceed against the other defendants, 8 
including defendants who were not served with 
process at that time, 4 and defendants as to whom 
an appeal against an improper dismissal is pend- 
ing. 5 If no sufficient case is stated against one of 
several defendants, a final judgment may be en- 
tered disposing of the case as to him; 6 or separate 
judgments may be entered at the conclusion of the 



trial against defendants who could have been sued 
severally. 7 If the action is such that a several 
judgment would be proper, as where it is brought 
to enforce liability for tort, 8 or on a contract which 
is both joint and several,** judgment may be ren- 
dered against any one or more of defendants sued, 
without affecting or barring the remedy, at what- 
ever stage of the case their several liability is made 
to appear, as where such party suffers a default, as 
discussed infra 191, or submits to judgment by an 
offer, infra 184, or consent, infra 178, or con- 
fesses judgment, infra 144, 164, or where plain- 
tiff is entitled to such judgment on the allegations 
and admissions in the pleadings, as discussed in the 
CJ.S. title Pleading 433, also 49 CJ. p 676 notes 
89, 90. Also, under various statutes, it has been 
held proper to render separate judgments against 
each defendant where each is liable for only a pro- 
portionate amount of the total recovery, 10 or where 
the liability of each, as expressed in the contract 
sued on, is several and differs in extent propor- 
tionate to the respective and different interests of 
each, 11 or where independent acts of tort-feasors 



99. Ind. Hassler v. Hefele, 50 N. 
E. 361. 151 Ind. 391. 

1. Cal. Trans-Pacific Trading Co. 
v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209 
P. 357, 189 Cal. 509 Weisz v. Mc- 
Kee, 87 P.2d 379, 31 Cal.App.2d 
144, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200, 
31 Cal.App.2d 144 Huntoon v. 
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank, 
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121. 

N.J. Ordinary of State v. Bastian, 

5 A.2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105. 
Okl. Howell v. Hart, 69 'P.2d 1043, 
180 Okl. 397 Corpus Juris cited in 
Corley v. French, 293 P. 177, 178, 
146 Okl. 29. 
Or. Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P. 452, 

108 Or. 311. 
33 C.J. p 1129 note 4-3. 
In Iroulsiana 

Where two parties are sued, one 
for the payment of a note as maker, 
and the other for illegally retaining 
it, the causes of action being dis- 
tinct, judgment may well be had 
against one and the case continued 
as to the other. Regillo v. Lorente, 
7 La. 140. 

2. Pa. MacHolme v. Cochenour, 
167 A. 647, 109 Pa.Super. 563. 

Vt. Metropolitan Washing Machine 
Co. v. Morris, 39 Vt 393. 

3. Cal. Trans-Pacific Trading Co. 
v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209 
OP. 357, 189 Cal. 609 Huntoon v. 
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank, 
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121 Park- 
er v. Hardistfr, 202 P. 479, 54 Cal. 
App. 628. 

Ga. Bank of Madison v. Bell, 118 
S.E. 439, 30 GteuApp. 458. 



Minn. Bank of Commerce v. Smith, 

59 N.W. 311, 57 Minn. 374. 
N.J. Ordinary of State v. Bastian, 

5 A.2d 463, 17 J^.J.Misc. 105. 
Okl. Howell v. Hart, -69 P.2d 1043, 

180 Okl. 397. 
33 C.J. p 1129 note 44. 
Subsequent judgment under cross 

petition 
Ky. Culton v. Couch, 20 S.W.2d 451, 

230 Ky. 586. 

Specific order for continuance un- 
necessary 

The court need not specifically re- 
serve its Jurisdiction as to other de- 
fendants as to whom judgment is 
not rendered, but such Jurisdiction 
continues automatically. Howell v. 
Hart, 69 P.2d 1045, 180 Okl. 397. 

Action on contractor's bond 

Under Heard Act which contem- 
plates presentation of all claims un- 
der a contractor's bond in a single 
action, which is to proceed as a sin- 
gle case, separate final judgments 
may be entered on the claims of 
the different claimants where so to 
enter them cannot prejudice the oth- 
er claimants or the surety, as where 
the total of all the claims does 
not exceed the penalty of the bond. 
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Woodbury 
Granite Co., 101 F.2d 689, 69 App.D. 
C. 364, certiorari dismissed 60 S.Ct. 
63, 308 U.S. 628, 84 L.Bd. 524. 

4. Cal. Corbin v. Howard, 215 P. 

920, 61 CaLApp. 715. 
Minn. First Nat. Bank of Wabasha 

v. Burkhardt, 73 N.W. 858, 71 

Minn. 185. 



Okl. Howell v. Hart, 69 P.2d 1043, 
180 Okl. 397. 

5. Ark. Berryman v. Cudahy Pack- 
ing Co., 87 S.W.2d 21, 191 Ark. 
533. 

Statute held inapplicable 

Statute providing that, in actions 
other than on contract wherein sum- 
mons has been served on some only 
of defendants, plaintiff may demand 
a trial as to only some of defend- 
ants on discontinuing action as to 
others does not apply to prevent 
judgment against defendant after 
reversal on appeal of erroneous or- 
der quashing service of process as 
to him, where judgment was taken 
against his codefendant pending the 
appeal. Berryman v. Cudahy Pack- 
ing Co., supra. 

6. Cal. Weisz v. McKee, 87 P.2d 
379, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200, 
31 Cal.App.2d 144 Huntoon v. 
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank, 
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121. 

7. S.D. Western Twine Co. v. 
Wright, 78 N.W. 94$, 11 S.D. 521, 

.44 L.R.A. 438. 

8. Cal. McNeely v. Los Angeles 
County Super. Ct, 173 P. 102, 36 
Cal.App. 602. 

9. N.J. Ordinary of State v. Bas- 
tian, 5 A.2d 46-3, 17 N.J.Misc. 105. 

33 C.J. p 1129 note 47. 

10. Ark. Fidelity OPheniac Fire Ins. 
Co. v. Friedman, 174 S.W. 215, 117 
Ark. 71. 

11. Colo. Irwiu v. Wood, 4 P. 783, 
7 Colo. 477. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



36 



have combined to cause plaintiffs injury and sep- 
arate verdicts against each for varying amounts 
have been returned. 12 

On the other hand, if the cause of action sued 
on is such that the judgment must be joint and 
under the circumstances the case is not a proper 
one to go to judgment against one of the defend- 
ants liable, the court cannot properly render judg- 
ment against any of those defendants whose lia- 
bility has been made to appear, 1 ^ although the en- 
try of judgment as to some of the defendants prior 
to final trial is not error of which the other de- 
fendants may complain, where it does not prejudice 
any defense, set-off, or counterclaim of theirs. 14 It 
has also been held that separate judgments are per- 
missible only where the substantive law controlling 
the case is such as to impose several separable and 
different respective liabilities on defendants. 15 

The entry of a separate judgment against one or 
more defendants, under a statute authorizing it, 
does not merge the cause of action, as at common 
law, and prevent the further pursuit of judgment 
against the other defendants. 16 It is not binding 
on the other defendants ; 17 but it operates as a sev- 
erance of the cause of action, and after such judg- 



ment the issues made by the remaining defendants 
are to be heard and determined as if they had been 
sued alone. 18 On such final trial, a judgment may 
be rendered against the remaining defendant for the 
whole or such part of the cause of action as may 
be proved against him. 19 It is no objection that 
the various judgments are for different amounts. 20 
Separate judgments against different defendants 
have been converted into one judgment against all 
the defendants in solido in order to fix the obliga- 
tion inter se. 21 

On new trial as to some of codefendants. In ju- 
risdictions where separate judgments against code- 
fendants are authorized, separate judgments may 
be recovered where some of the defendants, after a 
joint judgment against them, obtain a new trial; 22 
but, in jurisdictions where only one final judgment 
may be entered in an action, it has been held that, 
where a new or further trial is found necessary as 
to one defendant and the case has been correctly 
tried as to another, the case will be held in abey- 
ance as to the latter until after the new trial and 
then one final judgment entered, 23 or it will be re- 
tried as to such defendant on the issue of amount 
of liability only. 24 



12. 111. Martin v. Blackburn, 38 N. ] 
B.2d 939, 312 IlLApp. 549. 

13. Mich. Rimmele v. Huebner, 157 
N.W. 10, 190 Mich. 247. 

33 C.J. p 1129 note 45. 

In action on contract which is 
joint only, and not joint and several, 
a several judgment against some of 
defendants cannot be rendered be- 
fore final trial, as it cannot be de- 
termined until such trial whether 
or not a several judgment is proper. 
Hempy v. Hansom, 33 Ohio St. 
312 Aucker v. Adams, 23 Ohio St. 
543. 

14. Ohio. Hempy v. Ransom, 83 
. Ohio St. -312. 

33 C.J. p 1128 note 38. 

15. Miss. Gillespie v. Olive Branch 
Building & Lumber Co., 164 So. 42, 
174 Miss. 154. 

16. N.J. Ordinary of State v. Bas- 
tian, 5 A.2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105. 

33 C.J. p 1129 note 54. 
Stockholders statutory liability 

(1) In an action against the reg- 
istered owner of stock of an in- 
solvent bank to enforce the stock- 
holder's statutory liability for the 
bank's debts, judgment may be ob- 
tained against one discovered to be 
the real owner of the stock after 
judgment had been rendered against 
the registered owner, where the 
court had reserved jurisdiction of 
the cause. Reconstruction Finance 
Corporation v. Pelts, 0,<VUU., 123 



F.2d 503, certiorari denied Pelts v. ( 
Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 
62 S.Ct 796, 315 U.S. 812, 86 L.Ed. 
1210 Ericson v. Slomer, C.C.A.I11., 
94 F.2d 437. 

(2) The relationship between the 
real owner and the registered own- 
er of the stock is that of trustee 
and cestui due trust and not that 
of undisclosed principal and agent. 
Reconstruction Finance Corporation 
v. Pelts, C.C.A.I11., 123 F.2d 503, ceT- 
tiorari denied Pelts v. Reconstruc- 
tion Finance Corporation, 62 S.Ct. 
796, 315 U.S. 812, 86 L.Ed. 1210. 

17. Kan. Davis v. Deal, 222 P. 68, 
115 Kan. 12. 

18. Ohio. Hempy v. Ransom, 33 
Ohio St. 3JL2. 

Character of proof required 

Plaintiff must establish the alle- 
gations of his petition by proof of 
the same character and of the same 
degree as though each of defendants 
were defending. Davis v. Deal, 222 
P. 68, 115 Kan. 12. 

19. Iowa. Smith v. Coopers, 9 Iowa 
376. 

Ohio. Hempy v. Ransom, 33 Ohio 
St 312. 

20. Cal. Cole v. Roebling Constr. 
Co., 105 P. 255, 156 CaL 443. 

21. La. Rosenberg v. Derbes, 109 
So, 841, 161 La. 1070. 

22. Cal. Knight v. Gosselin, 12 P. 
2d 454, 124 CaLApp. #90. 

33 C.J. p 1126 note 19. 

93 



No double obligation 

The second judgment does not 
create a double obligation. Knight 
v. Gosselin, supra. 

23. Mo. Electrolytic Chlorine Co. 

v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W. 

2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 

930 Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. 

Co., Mo., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 

389. 
Tex. Alexander v. Meredith, Civ. 

App., 154 S.W.2d 920, certified 

questions dismissed 152 S.W.2d 

732, 137 Tex. 37. 
Right of appellate court to affirm 

as to some defendants and re- 
verse as to others see Appeal and 

Error 1919-1922. 
Retrial on reversal as to some of de- 
fendants 

Where, on appeal, a case is affirm- 
ed as to some of defendants and re- 
versed and sent back for retrial as 
to others, the judgment on the first 
trial, as it was affirmed, and the 
judgment on the retrial have been 
held to constitute one final judgment 
so as not to violate the statute 
against more than one final judg- 
ment in a case. 
Mo. Snuff v. Kansas City, 282 S.W. 

128, 221 Mo.App. 505. 
Tex. Compton v. Jennings Lumber 

Co., Civ.App., 295 S.W. 308. - 

24. Mo. Barr v. Nafzlger Baking 
Co., 41 S.W.2d 559, 328 Mo. 423 
Polkowski v. St, Louis Public 



36 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



Interested person not a party litigant. The mere 
fact that a judgment is not res judicata to an inter- 
ested person who is not a party litigant does not 
prevent the court from rendering a judgment which 
is final and res judicata as to all the parties to the 
proceeding. 2 ^ 



37. 



Relief between Codefendants 



Judgment determining the ultimate rights of de- 
fendants as between themselves Is authorized under va- 
rious codes and practice acts, but such a judgment is not 
authorized at common law. 

At common law, and in the absence of statute 
changing the rule, one defendant to a suit cannot 
recover a judgment against a codefendant, because 
the issue is as to the liability of defendants, or ei- 
ther of them, to plaintiff, and not as to the liability 
of defendants as between themselves; 26 if one de- 
fendant is entitled to contribution, indemnity, or 
other relief against his codefendant, it must be 
obtained in an independent action. 2 ? As between 
codefendants, nothing is adjudicated by a joint 
judgment against them, as considered infra 440, 
although in equity a decree between codefendants 
may be rendered in proper cases, as considered in 
Equity 603. 

Under codes and practice acts, affirmative relief 
may be granted as between defendants in relation 
to the subject matter of the action, 28 on proper 
pleadings and procedure in accordance with the 



statute, 29 it being usually provided that a judgment 
may determine the ultimate rights of the parties on 
the same side as between themselves. 30 Such relief 
may be granted, even though as between the vari- 
ous litigants the issues are contractual as to one and 
tortious as to the other. 31 

Such a statute, however, does not make codefend- 
ants adversaries. 32 It permits the determination of 
questions of primary and secondary liability between 
joint tort-feasors, 33 but it does not authorize judg- 
ment as to matters not connected with the subject 
of plaintiffs action. 34 The judgment authorized 
is only such as is responsive to the issues in plain- 
tiffs action and incidental to defendant's defense 
therein, 36 as a defendant is not authorized to in- 
ject into plaintiff's suit an independent suit, either 
at law or in equity, against his codefendant, not 
necessary or germane to his defense to plaintiffs 
suit, 36 unless a statute authorizes the determination 
of particular issues. 37 Under some statutes, where 
a defendant is impleaded as being ultimately liable, 
the judgment against such defendant should be in 
favor of the original defendant and not in favor 
of plaintiff, whose judgment should be against the 
original defendant. 38 Service of process, or notice 
of some sort, as by service of a copy of the answer 
or cross complaint praying such relief, is essential 
to the validity and regularity of a judgment in fa- 
vor of one defendant against his codefendant. 39 



Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229 
Mo.App. 24. 

25. La. Parish of Jefferson v. 
Texas Co., 189 -So. 580, 192 La. 
934, certiorari denied Texas Co. v. 
Parish of Jefferson, S.Ct. 138, 
308 U.S. 601, 84 L.Ed. 503. 

26. Tex. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Cauble v. Cauble, Cir.App., 283 S. 
W. 914, 919, 920. 

33 C.J. p 1131 note 63. 

27. Tex. Corpus Juris Quoted In 
Cauble v. Cauble, Civ.App., 28S 
S.W. 914, 919, 920. 

33 C.J. p 11-31 note 64. 
Right to judgment for: 
Contribution between defendant 
tort-feasors see Contribution 
13 g. 
Indemnity see Indemnity 28. 

28. Mo. Merz v. Tower Grove 
Sank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611, 
344 Mo. 1150. 

N.Y. Weiner v. Mager & Throne, 3 
N.Y.S.2d 918, 167 Misc. 338 Cohen 
v. Dugan Bros., 235 N.T.S. 118, 134 
Misc. 155. 

Pa. -Ford v. City of Philadelphia, 24 
A.2d 746, 148 Pa.Super. 195. 

Tex. Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble 



v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914, 
919, 920. 
33 C.J. p 1131 note 67. 

29. Mo. Scheer v. Trust Co. of St. 
Louis, 49 S.W.2d 135, 330 Mo. 149. 

Tex. Corpus Juris guoted in Cauble 
v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914, 
919, 920. 

30. N.C. Montgomery v. Blades, 9 
S.B.2d 397, 217 N.C. 654. 

Tex. Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble 
v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914, 
919, 920. 

31. N.Y. Weiner v. Mager & 
Throne, 3 N.Y,S.2d 918, 167 Misc. 
5'38. 

32. Mo. Merz v. Tower Grove Bank 
& Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611, 344 
Mo. 1150. 

33. N.C. Montgomery v. Blades, 9 
S.E.2d 397, 217 N.C. 654. 



34. N.C. Montgomery v. 
supra. 



Blades, 



35. Mo. Merz v. Tower Grove 
Bank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611, 
344 Mo. 1150 Missouri Dist Tel- 
egraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell 
Telephone Co., 79 S.W.2d 257, 336 
Mo. 453 Scheer v. Trust Co. of 

94 



St Louis, 49 S.W.2d 135, 330 Mo. 

149. 
Relief not authorized 

In innocent holder's suit on note, 
makers could not obtain relief for 
payments made to payees and not 
credited on note. Cohen v. Daily, 
Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 199. 

36. Mo. Merz v. Tower Grove 
Bank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611, 
344 Mo. 1150 Missouri Dist Tel- 
egraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell 
Telephone Co., 79 S.W.2d 257, 3'36 
Mo. 453. 

Equities not affecting' plaintiff's 
tights cannot be adjudicated. Cohen 
v. Daily, Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 199. 

37. Mo. Early v. Small wood, 256 
S.W. 1053, 302 Mo. 92. 

38. N.T. Otis Elevator Co. v. Mil- 
ler, 216 N.Y.S. 320, 127 Misc. 421. 

39. Tex. Stokes Bros. & Co. v. 
Kramer, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 822 
Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble v. 
Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. *14, 
919, 920. 

33 C.J. p 1152 note 70. 
Process, notice, or appearance see 
supra 23-26. 



49 C.J.S. 

38. Nominal Parties 

Ordinarily Judgment should be fn the name of a 
nominal or formal party, but It Is proper to show there- 
in the real party In Interest. 

In general judgment must be entered in the name 
of plaintiff, although for the use and benefit of an- 
other, 4 ^ and, if entered in favor of the beneficiary 
alone, it is irregular and erroneous. 41 Where the 
real parties in interest will be estopped from again 
asserting the claim in suit, judgment in the name of 
a nominal party is not error. 4 2 However, under 
statutes requiring that actions be .prosecuted in the 
name of the real party in interest, it has been held 
that judgment may not be rendered in favor of a 



JUDGMENTS 



40 



plaintiff who fails to show any remedial interest 
in himself, even though defendant has contested 
the case on the merits. 43 It has been held that a 
pro forma plaintiff cannot recover. 44 Judgment 
may be rendered against a defendant, although he 
is only a nominal or formal party, 45 but the judg- 
ment properly should discriminate between the ac- 
tual defendants charged with liability and mere 
nominal or unnecessary defendants not under any 
liability to plaintiff. 46 In an action against a hus- 
band in which his wife, without having been served 
with a summons, was made a nominal party defend- 
ant on plaintiff's motion, a judgment against her is 
voidable. 4 ? 



D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT 
39. Pleadings 



The necessity and sufficiency of pleadings 
port a judgment are considered infra 

Examine Pocket Parts for later cases. 

40. Necessity and Sufficiency 

a. Necessity 

b. Sufficiency 



to sup- 
40, 41. 



a. Necessity 

Subject to certain exceptions, pleadings have been 
held essential to the regularity of a Judgment. 

While exceptions may occur in respect of judg- 
ments by confession or consent, under principles 
discussed infra ISO, 151, 174, as a general rule 
pleadings are essential to support the judgment of 
a court of record, 48 and are as necessary a basis for 
a valid judgment as is evidence. 4 ^ In this connec- 



40. HI. McCormick v. Fulton, 19 
111. 570. 

83 C.J. p 1132 note 72. 

41. 111. -Hobson v. Mc'Cainbridge, 22 
N.B. 823, 1-30 111. -367. 

42. Okl. American Surety Co. of 
New York v. Marsh, 293 P. 1041, 
146 Okl. 261. 

Wash. Weaver v. Heaton, 4 P.2d 
521, 164 Wash. 674. 

43. Alaska. In re Nagao, 4 Alaska 
678. 

Ky. Lytle v. Lytle, 2 Mete. 127. 

44. Tex. Lucas v. Dallas County, 
Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 179-r Hill v. 
Kelsey, Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 1017 
Avenel v. Iskovitz, Civ.App., 50 
S.W.2d 895. 

45. Tex. Harris v. Musgrove, 59 
Tex. 401. 

46. Ky. Cincinnati H. & P. B. Co. 
v. Spratt, 2 Duv. 4. 

La. Morries v. Zelter, 4 La.A., Or- 
leans, 411. 

47. .(Pa. Rawlings v. Lewert, 9 Pa, 
Disk & Co. 701, 28 Lack.Jur. 15, 
75 Pittsb.Leg.J. 111. 

48. Ala. Brue v. Vaughn, 2 So.2d 
396, 241 Ala. 322. 

Ky. Howard v. Howard, 94 S.W.2d 

652, 264 Ky. 311. 
lu Bank of White Castle v. Baker, 

139 So. 648, 174 La. 17. 
Or. Haberly v. J>armers' Mut Fire 

Relief Ass'n, 294 P. 5$4, 13 Or. 

32. 
Tex. City of Fort Worth v. Gause, 



101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex. 25 Coh- 
en v. City of Houston, Civ.App., 
185 S.W.2d 450 Ston v. Boone, 
Clv.App., 160 S.W.2d 578, error re- 
fused Knox v. Lyarels, Civ.App., 
155 S.W.2d 435, error refused- 
Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App., 127 
S.W.2d 559, reversed on other 
grounds Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S. 
W.2d 83, 136 Tex. 215 Vassiliades 
v. Theophiles, Civ.App., 115 S.W. 
2d 1220, error dismissed Texas 
& N. O. R. Co. v. Whisenant, Civ. 
App., 105 S.W.2d 706 Harris v. 
Goodloe, Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 156, 
reversed on other grounds Goodloe 
& Meredith v. Harris, 94 S.W.2d 
1141, 127 Tex. -583 Bstes v. Hart- 
ford Accident & Indemnity Co., 
Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 413, error re- 
fused Matrimonial Mut Ass'n of 
Texas v. Rutherford, Ctv.App., 41 
S.W.2d 719, error dismissed Cisco 
& N. E. R. Co. v. Ricks, Civ.App., 
33 S.W.2d 878 Smoot & Smoot v. 
Nelson, Civ. App., 11 S.W.2d 578 
Connellee v. Witty, Civ. App., 246 
S.W. 715. 

Utah. Upper Blue Bench Irr. Dist. 
v. Continental Nat Bank & Trust 
Co., 72 P.2d 1048, 93 Utah 325 
Stockyards Nat. Bank of South 
Omaha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966, 67 
Utah 60. 

Va. Porks v.' Wiltbank, 14 S.E.2d 
281, 177 Va. 461. 

Wis. Stellmacher v. Sampson, 219 
N.W. 343, 195 Wis. 635. 

33 OT. p 1132 note 80. '- " 

95 



"There is no principle better set. 
tied than that a judgment or decree 
cannot he entered in the absence of 
pleadings upon which to found the 
same." Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So. 
179, 180, 21 Ala^App. 441. 

Matters occurring* pendent* lite 
are not adjudicated by the judgment 
unless brought before the court by 
supplemental pleading. Grand Un- 
ion Hotel v. Industrial Accident 
Commission, 226 P. 948, 67 CaLApp. 
123. 

Where no pleading's were filed in 
"behalf of Interveners, a judgment in 
their favor could not be sustained 
on direct atta-ck on appeal. Howe v. 
Keystone (Pipe & Supply Co., 274 S. 
W. 563, 115 Tex. 158, motion for re- 
hearing overruled 278 S.W. 177, 115 
Tex. 158. 

49. Ky. Consolidation Coal Co. v. 
King, 244 S.W. 303, 196 Ky. 54. 

Tenn. Poster v. Andrews, 189 S.W. 
2d 580. 

Tex. Street v. Cunningham, Civ. 
App., 156 S.W.2d 541 Lone Star 
Gas Co. v. Holifleld, Civ.App., 160 
S.W.2d 282 Birdville Independent 
School Dist. v. Deen, Civ.App., 141 
S.W.2d 680, affirmed Deen v. Bird- 
ville Independent School Dist., 159 
S.W.2d 111, 138 Tex. 339 Adams 
v. Impey, Civ. App., i31 S.W.2d 
288 Shell Petroleum Corporation 
v. Liberty Gravel & Sand Co., Civ. 
App., 128 S.W.2d 471 Forman v. 
Barron, CivJLpp., 120 S.W.2d 827. 



40 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



tion it has been said that courts have no power to 
render judgment until their action is called "into 
exercise by pleadings, 60 that the court lacks juris- 
diction of the subject matter or controversy in the 
absence of pleadings, 51 and that a judgment ren- 
dered without pleadings in support thereof is funda- 
mentally erroneous, 52 a nullity, 63 and void 64 rather 
than voidable. 65 Where pleadings are lost, judg- 
ment should not be rendered until they have been 
restored. 66 

A declaration, petition, or complaint is essential to 
the regularity of a judgment, 57 and it has been held 
that such a pleading is essential to the court's ju- 



risdiction to enter judgment, 68 and that its absence 
will render the judgment void, 59 although objection 
to the absence of such a pleading may be waived. 60 
Aside from judgments by confession, consent, or de- 
fault, as discussed infra 150, 151, 174, 199, a 
plea or answer may be essential to the regularity of 
a judgment. 61 Where the initial pleading has been 
filed in one division of a court, and the answer is 
filed in a different division, the former has been 
held to lack jurisdiction to enter judgment. 62 

b. Sufficiency 

The pleadings should be sufficient to support the 



error refused Fidelity & Deposit 
Co. of Maryland v. Citizens Nat. 
Bank of Lubbock, Civ.App., 120 -S. 
W.2d 113, error dismissed Shack- 
elford v, Neilon, Civ.App., 100 S. 
W.2d 1037 Shambaugh v. Ander- 
son, Civ.App., 92 -S.W.2d 530, error 
dismissed Traders & General Ins. 
Co. v. Lincecum, Civ.App., 81 S.W. 
2d 549, reversed on other grounds 
107 -S.W.2d 585, 130 Tex. 220 Karr 
v. Cockerham, Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 
905, error dismissed Texas Co. v. 
Wright, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 487 
Gause-Ware Funeral Home v. Mc- 
Ginley, Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 433, 
error refused Casualty Recipro- 
cal Exchange v, Allesandro, Civ. 
App., 34 S.W.2d 636 Humble Oil 
& Refining Co. v. Southwestern 
Bell Telephone Co., Civ.App., 2 
S.W.2d 488 Flagg v. Matthews, 
Civ.App., 287 S.W. 299. 
Va. Potts v. Mathieson Alkali 
Works, 181 S.E. 521, 165 Va. 196. 
33 C.J. p 1141 note 54. 
Evidence as essential to support 
judgment see infra 44. 
A judgment cannot rest on evi- 
dence alone unsupported by plead- 
ing, unless there has been a waiver 
by opposite party. Howard v. How- 
ard, 94 S.W.2d 652, 264 Ky. 311. 
Proof cannot supply omissions in 

allegations 

Ala. Brue v. Vaughn, 2 So.2d 396, 
241 Ala. 322. 

A Judgment entered on evidence 
without pleadings is as fatally de- 
fective as a judgment on pleadings 
without supporting evidence. Stone 
v. Boone, Tex.Civ.App., 160 'S.W.2d 
578, error refused -Rudolph v. 
Smith, Tex.Civ.App.. 148 -S.W.2d 225. 

50. Ala. Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So. 
179, 21 Ala.App. 441. 

Tex. Dunlap v. Southerlin, 63 Tex. 
38 Fidelity & Deposit Co. of 
Maryland v. Citizens Nat. Bank of 
Lubbock, Ci<v.App., 120 S.W.2d 113, 
error refused Continental South- 
land Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Pan- 
handle Const. Co,, Civ.App., 77 S. 
W.2d 896, error refused Moore v. 
Jones, Civ.App., 278 S.W. 326 Con- 



nellee v. Witty, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 
715. 

51. Mo. Owens v. McCleary, App., 
273 S.W. 145. 

XJtah. Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P. 83, 67 

trtah 371. 

'It is fundamental that a petition 
or pleading of some kind is the ju- 
ridical means of investing a court 
with Jurisdiction of subject-matter 
to adjudicate it." Stockyards Nat. 
Bank of South Omaha v. Bragg, 245 
P. 966, 973, 67 Utah 60. 

52. Tex. City of Fort Worth v. 
Gause, 101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex. 
25 Rudolph v. -Smith, Civ.App., 
148 S.W.2d 225 Williams v. Sin- 
clair-Prairie Oil Co., Civ. App., 135 
S.W.2d 211, error dismissed, judg 1 - 
ment -correct State v. Howe, Civ. 
App., 91 S.W.2d 487 Penrod v. 
Von Wolff, Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d 
859 Jones v. Womack-Henning & 
Rollins, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 635 
Short v. Stephens, Civ.App., 44 
S.W,2d 466. 

63. Utah. Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P. 
83, 67 Utah 371. 

54. Ala. Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So. 
179, 21 Ala.App. 441. 

Colo. Hough v. Lucas, 230 P. 789, 
76 Colo. 94. 

Fla. Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768, 
93 Fla. 611. 

Mont. Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kun- 
neke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont. 117. 

Tenn. Lewis v. Burrow, 127 S.W.2d 
795, 23 Tex.App. 145. 

Tex. Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App., 
185 S.W.2d 759, refused for want 
of merit Ritch v. Jarvis, Civ. 
App., 64 S.W.2d 831, error dis- 
missed Davis v. Sloan Lumber 
Co., Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 225 Mills 
v. Moore, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 297 
Hart v. Hunter, 114 S.W. 882, 
52 Tex.Civ.App. 75. 

Va. 'Potts v, Mathieson Alkali 
Works, 181 S.E. 521, 165 Va. 196. 

W.Va. Kesterson v. "Brown, 119 S. 
B. 677, 94 W.Va, 447 Waldron v. 
Harvey, 46 S.E. 603, 54 W.Va. 608, 
102 Am.S.R. 959. 

33 C.J.. p 1132 note 8334 C.J. p 561 
note 7. 

96 



55. W.Va. Kesterson v. Brown, 119 
S.E. 677, 94 W.Va. 447 Waldron 
v. Harvey, 46 S.B. 60-3, -54 W.Va. 
608, 102 Am,S.R. 959. 

56. Tex. Watson Co., Builders, v. 
Bleeker, Civ.App., 285 S.W. 637. 

33 C.J. p 1133 note 94. 

57. Tex. Safety Casualty Co. v. 
McGee, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 519, 
affirmed 127 S.W.2d 176, 133 Tex. 
233, 121 A.L.R. 126Q Kentucky Oil 
Corporation v. McCandless, Civ. 
App., 300 S.W. 972. 

33 C.J. p 1132 notes 85, 87. 

58. Utah. State v. Cragun, 20 P.2d 
247, 81 Utah 457. 

Wis. Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 276 
N.W. 325, 226 Wis. 285. 

59. Iowa. Jordan v. Brown, 32 N. 
W. 450, 71 Iowa 421. 

33 C.J. p 1132 note 86. 

60. Neb. Heater v. Penrod, 89 N. 
W. 762, 2 Neb.Unoff. 711. 

33 C.J. p 1133 note 89. 

61. W.Va. Cline v. Star Coal & 
Coke Co., 153 S.B. 148, 109 W.Va. 
101 Del-Carbo Coal & Coke Co. 
v. Cunninghame, 116 S.B. 719, 9*3 
W.Va. 12. 

Vnpleaded defense 

A judgment based on an unplead- 
ed defense that money sought to be 
garnished was exempt because con- 
stituting proceeds of insurance pol- 
icy on household goods held void, 
as being unsupported by pleadings. 
Sorenson v. City Nat. Bank, Tex. 
Civ.App., 273 S.W. 638. 
Declinatory exceptions 

Where citations to a defendant are 
served on the secretary of state, and 
defendant challenges the validity of 
the service and the jurisdiction of 
the court through declinatory excep- 
tions, but at no time files an answer 
or suffers judgment to be taken by 
default, judgment against defendant 
on the merits has been 'held void. 
Rector v. Allied Van Lines, L/a.App., 
198 So. 16. 

62. Mo. Owens v. McCleary, 
273 S.W. 145. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



40 



Judgment, and a judgment rendered on a complaint fail- 
ing to state a cause of action has been held erroneous. 

As a general rule, pleadings must be sufficient 
to support the judgment; 63 they should be of such 
a character that a final judgment will be sustained 
by findings thereon. 64 While mere generality of 
the allegations is not of itself fatal to the validity 
of a judgment, 65 a judgment cannot be sustained 
by allegations which are only conclusions of law 
rather than averments of fact. 66 Pleadings have 
been held substantially defective where oral, 67 and 



facts presented by an unauthorized pleading do not 
afford a proper predicate for judgment. 68 

In determining the sufficiency of the pleadings to 
support the judgment it has been said that the- court 
will consider the pleadings of both parties, 69 and 
that facts pleaded by the adverse party are available 
to either party in support of the judgment 70 In 
testing the sufficiency of the complaint as a basis 
on which to rest the judgment, averments unsup- 
ported by the proof should be eliminated. 71 A judg- 
ment must be based on material allegations in the 



63. Ariz. Wallace r. Chappelle, 39 
P.2d 935. 45 Ariz. $5. 

CaL Kreling v. Superior Court of 
Los Angeles County, 118 P.2d 470, 
18 Cal.2d 884 Stesel v. Santa Ana 
River Water Co., 94 P.2d 1052, 85 
Cal.App.2d 117. 

Ky. Mclntosh v. Clark, Thurmund 
& Richardson, 177 S.W.2d 155, 296 
Ky. 858 Bank of Tollesboro v. 
W. T. Rawleigh Co., 291 S.W. 1089, 
218 Ky. 516 National Surety Co. 
v. Daviess County 'Planing Mill 
Co., 281 S.W. 791, 213 Ky. 670 
Elkhorn Coal Corporation v. Case, 
278 S.W. 570, 212 Ky. 146 Frick 
Co. v. Salyers, 258 S.W. 3-10, 201 
Ky. 763 Consolidation Coal Ca. v. 
King, 244 S.W. 303, 19* Ky. 54. 

Neb. Domann v. Domann, 208 N.W. 
669, 114 Neb. 563. 

Okl. Central Nat Oil Co. v. Conti- 
nental Supply Co., 249 P. 347, 119 
Okl. 190. 

Or. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty O. 
v. Zidell-Steinberg Co., HO P.2d 
584, 151 Or. 5*38, modified on other 
grounds 51 P.2d 687, 151 Or. 588. 

Tenn. Hunt v. National Linen Serv- 
ice Corporation, 157 S.W.2d 608, 
178 Tenn. 262.- 

Tex. John B. Quarles Co. v. Lee, 
Com.App., 58 &W.2d 77, costs re- 
taxed 67 &W.2d 607 Cohen v. 
City of Houston, Civ.App., 185 S. 
W.2d 450 Wi'ehlta Falls & S. R. 
Co. v. Hesson, Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 
270, error dismissed, judgment 
correct Pine v. Pratt, Civ.App., 
150 S.W.2d 80 ! 8 Ray v. Fowler, 
Civ.A.pp., 144 S.W.2d 665, error dis- 
missed, judgment correct Lone 
Star Finance Corporation v. Schel- 
ling, Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 368 San- 
er-Ragley Lumber Co. v. Sp*vey, 
CiY.App., 255 S.W. 193, modified 
on other grounds Spivey v. Saner- 
Ragley Dumber Co., Com.App., 284 
S.W. 210. 

Pleadings impliedly wiffloieut 

The entry of a judgment implies 
that the pleadings were sufficient to 
sustain the Judgment Wistrom 
Forsling, 14 N.W.2d 217, 144 Neb. 
638. 

Description of property 

In so far as the description of 
property in the pleadings is insuf- 

49 C.J.S.-7 



flcient to describe any property, a 
Judgment based thereon is invalid. 
Col. Birkhauser v. Ross, 283 P. 866, 

102 CaLApp. 582. 
Mo. Barrie v. Ranson, 46 S.W.2d 

186, 226 Mo.App. 554. 

Contradictory allegations 

A pleading alleging that acts for 
results of which the recovery of 
damages was sought were malicious 
and grossly negligent, and pleading 
alleging that acts were malicious, 
wrongful, willful, and wanton, were 
insufficient to authorize judgment 
based on negligence, or willful mis- 
conduct because pleadings were con- 
tradictory. Michels v. Boruta, Tex. 
C*v.App., 122 S.W.2d 216. 

Pleading* held sufficient 
(1) Generally. 

U.S. State Bank of New York v. 
Henderson County, Ky., C.C.A.Ky., 
35 F.2d 859, certiorari denied Hen- 
derson County, State of Kentucky, 
v. State Bank of New York, 50 
S.Ct 245, 281 U.S. 728, 74 L.Bd. 
1144, 1145. 

HI. Oberman v. Camden Fire Ins. 
Ass'n, 145 N.E. 351, 314 111. 264 
Christenson v. Board of Chari- 
ties of Illinois Conference of Ev. 
Lutheran Augustana Synod, 253 
Ill.App. $80. 

Ky. Small v. Minton, 192 S.W.2d 
184 Carter v. Templeman, 182 S. 
W.2d 241, 298 Ky. 272 United 
Mine Workers of America, Local 
Union 6659, v. Jones, 162 S.W.2d 17, 
290 Ky. 569 Guinn v. Cross, 147 
S.W.2d 375, 285 Ky. 571 Feltner 
v. Smith, 143 S.W.2d 505, 283 Ky. 
783 Carter v. Harlatji Hospital, 
128 S.W.2d 174, 278 Ky. 84 Rob- 
bins v. Hopkins, 65 S.W.2d 54, 251 
Ky. 413 McKinney v. Knapp, 258 
S.W. '314, 201 Ky. 768. 

Mo. Women's Christian Ass'n of 
Kansas City v. Brown, 190 S.W.2d 
900 Jones v. Campbell, App., 189 
S.W.2d 124. 

Neb. Hardt v. Orr, 6 N.W.2d 589, 
142 Neb. 460-JProkop v. Mlady, 
287 N.W. 55, 186 Neb. 644. 

Tex. Joyce v. Anderson-Bledsoe 
Stave Co., Civ. App., 173 S.W.2d 
315-^Sparrow v. Tinman, Civ.App., 
283 S.W. 877 Gulf, C. & & F. Ry. 
Co. v. Kempner, Civ.App., 275 S. 

97 



W. 459, reversed on other grounds, 
Com.App., 282 S.W. 795. 

(2) Allegations as to negligence. 
I1L Belcher v. Citizens Coach Co., 

App., 64 N.B.2d 747. 
Ky. Hurley v. Greif, 115 S.W.2d 
284, 272 Ky. 741. 

(3) Averments as to contributory 
negligence. Posey v. Board of 
Councilmen of City of Frankfort, 
184 S.W.2d 970, 299 Ky. 210 Na- 
pier v. Hurst-Snyder Hospital Co., 
130 S.W.2d 771, 279 Ky. 378. 

(4) Description of property. 

Ga. Cason v. United Realty & Auc- 
tion Co., 151 S.B. 161, 161 Ga. 374. 

Ky. Sapp v. Likens, 192 S.W.2d 394 
Souleyette v. McKee, 178 S.W.2d 
833, 296 Ky. 868. 

64. Nev. Edmonds v. Perry, 140 P. 
2d 566. 

65. Conn. Corden v. Zoning Bd. of 
Appeals of City of Waterbury, 41 
A.2d 912, 131 Conn. 654. 

Ky. S. K. Jones Const Co. v. Hend- 
ley, 5 S.W.2d 482, 224 Ky. 83. 

66. Ky. -Murphy v. Blackburn, 16 
S.W.2d 771, 229 Ky. 109 S. K. 
Jones Const Co. v. Hendley, 5 
S.W.2d 482, 224 Ky. 83. 

Tex. Wichita Falls & Southern R. 
Co. v. Anderson, Civ.App., 144 S. 
W.2d 441, error dismissed, Judg- 
ment correct 

67. Tex. Holloway v. Miller, Civ. 
App., 272 S.W. 562. 

68. Ky. Wells v. West, 15 S.W.2d' 
531, 228 Ky. 737. 

Substitute pleading filed without 
proper procedure, as where the orig- 
inal petition was lost and a substi- 
tute was filed without notice to de- 
fendant and hearing as required by 
statute, afforded insufficient basis 
for judgment and a judgment based 
thereon was illegal. Whorton v. 
Nevitt, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 1056. 

69. Tex. HaU v. Collins, Clv.App., 
167 S.W.2d 210, affirmed Collins v. 
Hall, 174 S.W.2d 50, 141 Tex. 433. 

70. Tex. Bagby v. Bagby, Civ.App., 
186 S.W.2d 702. 

71. Cal. White v. Covell, 227 P. 
196, 66 CaLApp. 732. 



40 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



pleadings. 72 Under some practice a judgment may 
not be entered on a cause of action asserted by re- 
ply, 73 Error in asserting the amount due in a 
counterclaim and cross action should be corrected 
by amendment thereof rather than by asserting the 
correct amount in reply, and a judgment based on 
the reply stating the correct amount cannot stand. 74 

Defects in form; irregularities. A pleading 
which is merely deficient in form has been held not 
to render the judgment void, 75 but only voidable. 76 
Thus mere defects and irregularities in the plead- 
ings will not invalidate the judgment, 77 at least 
where no timely objection thereto has been raised, 78 
and, even though a petition does not perfectly state 
a cause of action, a valid judgment may be entered 
thereon. A petition cannot be said to be so de- 
fective that no legal judgment may be entered there- 
on where the defect is amendable, 80 but a judgment 
has been held void where the petition was not 
amendable. 81 A judgment may be sustained de- 



spite defects in the pleadings on which it is based 
where the case falls within the purview of statu- 
tory provisions designed to protect judgments, such 
as statutes requiring a liberal construction of plead- 
ings, 82 or statutes of jeofails. 83 

Sufficiency of pleadings as basis of judgment for 
defendant. If a petition or similar pleading is in- 
sufficient as a basis for judgment in favor of plain- 
tiff, it is also insufficient to serve as the basis for 
a judgment for defendant. 84 Where plaintiff fails 
to amend, the proper judgment to enter is one sim- 
ply of dismissal, 85 and the fact that the pleading 
fails to state a cause of action will not prevent ren- 
dition of a judgment of dismissal. 86 When issues 
are framed on a plea in abatement and those issues 
are found for defendant, resulting in a judgment 
for him, such judgment has been held not void even 
though a demurrer to the complaint was sustained, 
since in such a case the judgment is not dependent 
on a complaint to give it effect, but is dependent 



72. HI. National Can Co. v. Weir- 
ton Steel Co., 145 N.E. 389, 314 
111. 280. 

73. Ky. Conley v. Coburn, 179 S.W. 
2d 668 f 297 Ky 292 Connecticut 
Fire Ins. of Hartford, Conn., v. 
Baker, 153 S.W.2d 9.38, 287 Ky. 
395. 

Mont. Armstrong- v. Butte, A. & P. 
R. Co., 99 P.2d 223, 110 Mont 133 
Stillwater County v. Kenyon, 
297 P. 453, 89 Mont 354. 

74L Ky. Rogers v. Boiling, 1 S.W. 
2d 989, 222 Ky. 561. 

75. Ala. Agee v. Agee's Cash Store 
No. 2, 10.0 So. 809, 211 Ala. 422. 

Utah. People's Bonded Trustee v. 

Wight 272 P. 200, 72 Utah 587. 
Jurisdiction of court 

Where the nature of the suit in- 
vokes the actual jurisdiction of the 
court rendering the judgment and 
the petition is merely lacking in 
allegations as to the fullness of 
' facts, it presents a matter for deter- 
mination by the trial judge and 
any error committed in rendering 
the judgment on insufficient facts 
does not render the judgment void. 
Rice v. Mercantile Bank & Trust 
Co. of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W. 
2d .54. 

76. Tex. Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ. 
App., 185 S.W.2d 759, refused for 
want of merit Ritch v. Jarvis, 
Civ. App., 64 S.W.2d 831, error dis- 
missed Hart v. Hunter, 114 S.W. 
882, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 75. 

77. U.S. The Amaranth, C.C.AJNT. 
Y., 68 F.2d 893. 

Al<au John 33. Ballenger Const. Co. 
v. Joe P. Walters Const Co., 184 
So. 275, 236 Ala. 548. 



Ariz. Mosher v. Way land, 158 P.2d 
654, appeal dismissed 66 -S.Ct. 58. 

Cal. Russell v. Ramm, 254 P. 532, 
200 Cal. 348 Goatman v. Fuller, 
216 P. 35, 19i Cal. 245 In re 
Dam's Estate, 14 P.2d 162, 126 
CaLApp. 70 Shupe v. Evans, 261 
P. 492, 86 CaLApp. 700. 

111. Fleming v. City of Chicago, 260 
Ill.App. 496. 

Kan. Goodman v. Cr etcher, 294 P. 
868, 132 Kan. 142. 

Ky. Lorton v. Ashbrook, 295 S.W. 
1027, 220 Ky. 830. 

Mich. Auditor General v. Oleznic- 
zak, 4 N.W.2d 679, 302 Mich. 336. 

Mo. Breit v. Bowland, App., 127 S. 
W.2d 71. 

Okl. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. 
Excise Board of Oklahoma County, 
3'3 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428 Kansas 
City Southern Ry. Co. v. Excise 
Board of Le Flore County, 33 P. 
2d 493, 168 Okl. 408. 

Utah. Gray's Harbor Lumber Co. v. 
Burton Lumber Co., 236 P. 1102, 
65 Utah 333, followed in Califor- 
nia Pine Box Distributors v. Bur- 
ton Lumber Co., 236 P. 1106, 65 
Utah 332. 

33 C.J. p 1134 note 1, p 1144 note 73. 

ZTanie of plaintiff 

Mo. La Forge Undertaking Co. v. 

Bader, App., 15 S.W.2d 945. 
33 C.J. p 1134 note 1 [b]. 

Improper designation of court 

While a judgment on petition 
which fails properly to designate 
court in which it is filed and in 
which judgment is asked is void, 
nevertheless an error or mistake in 
addressing a petition to the wrong 
court can be cured by supplemental 
or amended petition filed before is- 
sue joined and giving the proper 

98 



name and title of the court and in 
such case the petition will support 
the Judgment Kunnes v. Kogos, 
123 So. 122, 168 La. 682, 65 A.L.R. 
706. 

78. Fla. Harris v. Smith, 7 So.2d 
343, 150 Fla. 125. 

N.C. Hinton v. Whitehurst, 4 S.E.2d 

507, 216 N.C. 241. 
Tex. Kirkpatrick v. Neal, Civ.App., 

153 S.W.2d 519, error refused. 

79. Okl. Protest of St. Louis-San 
Francisco Ry. Co., 38 P.2d 954, 
170 Okl. 11. 

80. Ga. S towers v. Harris, '22 S.E. 
2d 405, 194 Ga. 636. 

Okl. Wetzel v. Evans, 147 P.2d 133, 
194 Okl. 20 Latimer v. Haste, 
223 P. 879, 101 Okl. 109. 

Tex. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. 
Piper, Civ.App., 222 S.W. 649. 

Utah. State v. Cragun, 20 P.2d 247, 
81 Utah 45, People's Bonded 
Trustee v. Wight, 272 P. 200, 72 
Utah 587. 

81. Ga. Deck v. Shields, 25 S.E.M 
514, 195 Ga. 697. 

82. Or. Siddons v. Lauterman, 109 
P.2d 1049, 165 Or. 668. 

33 <C.J. p 1134 note 5. 

83. Mich Ferton v. Feller, 33 
Mich. 199. 

34 C.J. p 510 note 35. 

84. Tex. Stewart v. Collatt, Civ. 
App., Ill S.W.2d 1131 JCollins v. 
Lowe, Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 872. 

85. Tex. Collins v. Lowe, supra. 

86. Ky. Wilson v. Louisville & N. 
R. Co., 77 S.W.2d 416, 257 Ky. 
144, . 



49 C.J.8. 



JUDGMENTS 



40 



only on the continued existence Of the cause in 
court. 87 While defendant's pleadings must be suf- 
ficient to support the judgment rendered, 88 they 
may be sufficient although defective if the defect is 
amendable. 89 It has been held that affirmative re- 
lief cannot be granted a defendant on the basis of 
his answer, but that a judgment for affirmative re- 
lief must be supported by a counterclaim. 90 

Defects in petition or complaint. As a general 
rule, where plaintiffs declaration or complaint is 
defective in substance, to the extent of failing to 



make out a cause of action, it cannot support a 
judgment in his favor, and such judgment will be 
erroneous and reversible 91 notwithstanding no de- 
murrer was filed, 92 or, if filed, was overruled, and 
defendant has answered over. 93 It has been held 
that failure of plaintiff's initial pleading to state a 
cause of action is not a jurisdictional defect, 94 and 
that, except where the complaint shows that the 
court has no jurisdiction of the parties and the sub- 
ject matter 95 or fails to show affirmatively that the 
court has such jurisdiction, 96 a judgment rendered 



87. Ala. Box v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 168 So. 216, 232 Ala. 1. 

88. Fla. Smith v, Pattishall, 173 
So. 355. 

Case not terminated 

In action on note, where defend- 
ant's pleas failed to set out any 
sufficient legal defense, a judgment 
rendered for defendant did not con- 
stitute a legal termination of the 
case. A. W. Muse Co. v. Collins, 
199 S.R 856, 58 Ga.App. 753. 
Flea or answer held sufficient 
Cal. Valentine v. G. S. Donaldson 
Inv. Co., 260 (P. *05, 86 Cal.App. 
142. 
Ohio. Thacker v. Matthews, 43 N. 

E.2d 108, 70 Ohio App. 314. 
Plea or answer held insufficient 
Fla. Merchants & Bankers Guaran- 
ty Co. v. Downs, 175 So. 704, 128 
Fla. 767. 

89. Tex. Gilbert v. T. B. Allen & 
Co., Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 377, er- 
ror refused. 

90. N.J. Kraft v. Fassitt, 30 A.2d 
574, 132 N.J.Ea. 603. reversed on 
other grounds 28 A,2d 537, 132 N. 
J.Eq. 625. 

91. U.S. Barnes v. Boyd, D.C.W. 
Va., 8 F.Supp. 584, affirmed. C.C. 
A., 73 F.2d 910, certiorari denied 
55 S.Ct. 550, 294 U.S. 72'3, 79 L.Ed. 
1254, rehearing denied 55 S.Ct. 647, 
295 U.S. 768, 79 L.Ed. 1708. 

Ala. John E. Ballenger Const. Co. 
v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 184 
So. 275, 236 Ala. 548 Rhodes v. 
Sewell, 109 So. 179, 21 Ala.App. 
441. 

Ark. Wilson v. Overturf, 248 S.W. 
898, 157 Ark. 385. 

Cal. Kreling v. Superior Court of 
Los Angeles County, 118 P.2d 470, 
18 Cal.2d 884 Birkhauser v. Ross, 
283 P. 866, 102 Cal.App. 582. 

Fla. McDougald v. Couey, 200 So. 
391, 145 Fla. 689 Oorpus Juris 
cited in East Coast Stores v. Cuth- 
bert, 133 So. 863, 865, 101 Fla. 25 
Porter v. Sprague, 126 So. 759, 
99 Fla. 371. 

Idaho. Stanger v. Hunter, 291 P. 
1060, 49 Idaho 723. 

Ky. Hardin Oil Co. v. Spencer, 266 
S.W. 654, 205 Ky. 842. 

Miss. Smith v. Peas, 130 So. 105, 



158 Miss. Ill Carrier Lumber & 
Mfg. Co. v. Quitman County, 124 
So. 437, 156 Miss. 396, 66 A.L.R. 
614, suggestion of error overruled 
125 So. 416, 156 Miss. 396, 66 A. 
L.R. 614, followed in Matthews v. 
Quitman County. 127 So. 305. 

Mont Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An- 
drews & Allred, 165 P.2d 804 
Montana Auto Finance Corpora- 
tion v. British & Federal Under- 
writers of Norwich Union Fire 
Ins. Soc y 232 -P. 198, 72 Mont 69, 
36 A.L.R. 1495. 

Neb. Sallander v. Prairie Life Ins. 
Co., 200 N.W. 844, 112 Neb. 629. 

N.M. Corpus Juris cited in In re 
Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 945, 950, 
40 N.M. 423. 

Pa. Greenberg v. Goldman Stores 
Corporation, 178 A. 528, 117 Pa. 
Super. 559. 

Tex. Stovall v. Finney, Civ.App., 
152 S.W.2d 887 -Fort Worth & 
Denver City Ry. Co. v. Reid, Civ. 
App., 115 S.W.2d 1156 Bell v. 
Beckum, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 389 
Wichita County v. Allred, Civ. 
App., 27 S.W.2d 653 Trail v. Ma- 
phis & Day, <3iv.App., 25 S.W.2d 
627 Texas Electric Service Co. v. 
Perkins, CivJLpp., 11 S.W.2d 643, 
affirmed, Com. App., 23 S.W.2d 320, 
followed in Texas Electric Service 
Co. v. Bradford, Civ.App., 26 S.W. 
2d 339 West Texas Utilities Co. 
v. Nunnally, Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 
391 Austin v. Fields, Civ.App., 
300 S.W. 247 Texas Employers' 
Ins. Ass'n v, Wright, Civ. App., 297 
S.W. 764, modified on other 
grounds, Com.App., 4 S.W.2d 31, 
motion denied 7 S.W.2d 72 Hollo- 
way v. Miller, Civ.App. f 272 S.W. 
562. 

38 C.J. p 1183 note 95, p 1144 note 
68. 

Allegation of liability 

(1) A petition or similar pleading 
which fails to allege some liability 
against a defendant does not state 
a cause of action within the rule 
requiring written pleadings in sup- 
port of a. judgment of a court of 
record. Woodward v. Acme Lumber 
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 1054 
Fisk v. Warren, Tex.Civ.App., 248 
S.W. 406. 

99 



(2) In an action on notes signed 
jointly by a husband and wife, a 
petition stating only that the for- 
mer is the husband of the latter, and 
not that he executed and delivered 
the notes, is insufficient to sustain a 
judgment against him. Fisk v. 
Warren, supra. 
Cause of action in alternative 

A pleading stating a cause of ac- 
tion against two parties in the al- 
ternative is insufficient to sustain a 
judgment against either. Hartzell 
v. Bank of Murray, 277 S.W. 270, 211 
Ky. 26-8. 
Jurisdiction 

The sufficiency of a petition in a 
court of record is not the test of 
jurisdiction, since the court may 
commit an error in holding it suffi- 
cient In re Warner's Estate, 288 N. 
W. 39, 137 Neb. 25. 

92. Ala. St .Clair County v. Smith, 
20 So. 584, 112 Ala. 347. 

93. Iowa. Brown v. Cunningham, 
48 N.W. 1042, 82 Iowa 512, 12 L. 
R.A. 583. 

94. Cal. In re Keel's Estate, 100 
P.2d 1045, 15 Cal.2d 328. 

'Okl. Noel v. Edwards, 260 P. 58, 
127 Okl, 163 Abraham v. Homer, 
226 P. 45, 102 Okl. 12. 

95. Cal. Moran v. -Superior Court 
in and for Sacramento County, 96 
P.2d 193, 36 Cal.App.2d 629. 
"The law makes a distinction be- 
tween a complaint which does not 
state a cause of action by reason 
of defects in the allegations therein 
contained, where the court has ju- 
risdiction of the subject-matter of 
the action, and cases where the court 
has no jurisdiction of the subject- 
matter. If it appears from the com- 
plaint that the court had no jurisdic- 
tion of the subject-matter, the judg- 
ment of course is void, but if the 
court has jurisdiction of the subject- 
matter, its rulings upon demurrer as 
to the sufficiency of the complaint 
constitutes only errors in procedure 
in the trial." Behrens v. Superior 
Court in and for Tuba County, 23 P. 
2d 428, 429, 132 Cal.App. 704. 

96. Tex. Smith v. Pegram, Civ. 
App., 80 S.W.2d 354, error refused 
Randals v. Green, Civ.App., 258 
S.W. 628. 



41 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



thereon is not void merely because the complaint 
fails to state a cause of action, 9 ? as long as it ap- 
prises defendant of the nature of plaintiffs de- 
mand. 98 In this connection it has been said that 
jurisdiction of the court to render judgment does 
not depend on the sufficiency or fullness of a cause 
of action pleaded, 99 and that, if a cause is pleaded 
belonging to a general class over which the court's 
authority extends, jurisdiction attaches, and the 
court has power to determine whether the pleading 
is good or bad and to decide on its sufficiency as a 
statement of a cause of action.* On the other hand, 
it has been broadly stated in some decisions that, 
where a complaint or similar pleading fails to state 
facts constituting a cause of action, the court lacks 
jurisdiction to render a judgment thereon, 2 and that 
a judgment rendered thereon is ordinarily void, 3 
at least where it rests solely on allegations of a 
complaint so deficient -in substance as conclusively 
to negative the existence of a cause of action at the 
time of its rendition. 4 Where the facts stated in 
the pleadings do not justify the judgment entered, 
the latter is coram non judice, 5 and where a plead- 
ing is so drawn as 'to show that the court can 



have no jurisdiction of the controversy, or is a nul- 
lity, any judgment rendered thereon is void. 6 



41. 



Several Counts 



The more modern rule, prevailing under statute, gen* 
erally regards a judgment on a general verdict as re* 
ferable to good counts in a pleading and valid despite the 
existence of bad counts therein. 

At common law, and in the absence of statute 
changing the rule, where the verdict is general, and 
one of the counts is bad, the judgment has been re- 
garded as erroneous, 7 except where all the counts 
relate to the same cause of action, in which case it 
has been held that the rule does not apply. 8 

The modern rule, however, usually applied by vir- 
tue of statute, holds a judgment valid under such 
circumstances where there is one good count in 
the declaration or complaint, 9 the judgment being 
referable to the good count, 10 unless it affirma- 
tively appears that the verdict and judgment are 
based only on the defective counts. 11 

It has been said that failure to require a party to 
exercise his right of election as between tort and 
contract counts in his pleading is at most a mere 



jurisdiction to enter a, Judgment 
Is dependent on a complaint show- 
Ing such jurisdiction. U. S. Nat. 
Bank of Portland v. Humphrey, 288 
P. 416, 49 Idaho 8.63. 

97. Cal. Moran v. Superior Court 
in and for Sacramento County, 96 
P.2d 198, (35 Cal.App.2d 629 Ex 
parte Sargren, 27 P.2d 407, 135 Cal. 
App. 402 Behrens v. Superior 
Court in and for Tuba County, 28 
P.2d 428, 132 CaLApp. 704 Asso- 
ciated Oil Co. Y. Mullin, 294 P.' 
421, 110 Cal.App. 385. 

Mo. Meierhoffer v. Kennedy, 263 8. 

W. 416, 504 Mo. 261. 
Neb. Wistrom v. Porsling, 14 N.W. 

2d 217, 144 Neb. 638. 
N,M, Corpus Juris cited in In re 
Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 945, 951, 
40 N.M. 423. 

Okl. Raymer v. First Nat. Bank, 87 
(P.2d 1097, 184 Okl. 392 -Protest 
of Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 32 P. 
2d 869, 168 Okl. 281 Fowler V. 
Margruret Pillsbury General Hos- 
pital, 229 P. 442, 102 Okl. 203. 
33 C.J. p 1133 note 96. 
Absence of affirmative showing- 
Judgment of court having Juris- 
diction of subject matter and of 
parties is not void on ground that 
petition failed to state, or defective- 
ly stated, cause of action, unless it 
affirmatively appears from petition 
that no valid cause of aetlon could 
be stated. Schmid v. Farris, 07 P. 
2d 596, 169 Okl. 445. 

98. Cal. Trans-Pacific Trading Co. 
v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209 

P. 357, 189 Cal. 509 Moran v. Su- 



perior Court in and for Sacramen- 
to County, 96 P.2d 193, 35 CaLApp. 
2d 629 Associated Oil Cd. v. Mul- 
lin, 294 P. 421, 110 CaLApp. 385 
Sheehan v. All Persons, etc., 
252 P. 337, 80 CaLApp. 393 Roe- 
mer v. Nunes, 238 P. 820, 73 Cal. 
App. -368. 

Okl. Bynum v. Strain, 218 'P. 883, 
95 Okl. 45. 

Or. Walling: v. I*ebb, 15 P,2d 370, 
140 Or. 691. 

33 C.J. p 113*3 note 96 [a] (3). 

99. Mont. State ex rel. Cook v. 
District Court of Ninth Judicial 
Dist in and for Glacier County, 
69 P.2d 746, 105 Mont 72 State 
ex rel. Delmoe v. District Court of 
Fifth Judicial Dist, 46 P.2d 39, 
100 Mont 131. 

1. Mont State ex reL Delmoe v. 
District Court of Fifth Judicial 
Dist, 46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont. 131. 

2. Mont. Hodson v. O'Keeffe, 229 
P. 722, 71 Mont 322. 

3. U.S. McLellan v. Automobile 
Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., CJC.A. 
Ariz., 80 F.2d 344. 

Ala. Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So. 179, 

21 Ala.App. 441. 
Idaho. Jensen v. Gooch, 211 P. 551, 

36 Idaho 457 Howell v. Martin, 

211 OP. 528, 36 Idaho 468. 
Miss.- U. <S. Fidelity & Guaranty 

Co. v. Plumbing: Wholesale Co., 166 

So. 529, 175 Miss. 675. 
Tex. Wright v. Shipman, Civ.App., 

279 S.W. 296. 

4. Mont State ex rel. Delmoe v. 
District Court of Fifth Judicial 
Dist., 46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont 131. 

100 



5. Tenn. State v. Collier, 53 S.W. 

2d 982, 164 Tenn. 163. 
6* Tex. -White v. Baker, Civ.App., 

118 S.W.2d -319. 

7. N.H. Glines v. Smith, 48 N.H. 
259. 

33 C.J. p 1134 note 7. 

8. N.H. Glines v. Smith, supra. 
33 C.J. p 1134 note 9. 

9. CaL -Martin v. Pacific South- 
west Royalties, 106 P.2d 443, 41 
Cal. App. 2d 161 Worthington v. 
People's State Bank of Chula Vis- 
ta, 288 P. 1086, 106 CaLApp. 238. 

111. Standard Oil Co. v. Town of 

(Patterson, 21 N.B.2d 12, 300 111. 

App. $85 Moore v. Jansen & 

Schaefer, 265 IlLApp. 459. 
Ind. Carter v. Thomas, 3 Ind. 213. 
Iowa. McCornack v. Pickerell, 294 

N.W. 746, 229 Iowa 4-57. 
Tex. Schaff v. Sanders, Civ.App., 

257 S.W. 670, affirmed, Com. App., 

2e9 S.W. 1034. 
33 C.J. p 1134 note 10. 
Statutory change of common-law 

rule discussed 
Miss. Scott v. Peebles, 10 Miss. 546, 

561. 

10. Ala. Andalusia Motor Co. v. 
Mullins, 18'3 So. 456, 28 Ala.App. 
201, certtorari denied 183 So. 460, 
236 Ala. 474. 

33 C.J. p 1134 note 10 [a]. 

11. TT.S. Scull v. Roane, Ark. Super., 
21 F.Cas.No.l2,570c, Hempst 103. 

111. Western Stone Co. v. Whalen, 
51 Ill.App. 512, affirmed 38 N.& 
241, 151 111, 472, 42 Am.S.R, 244. 

33 C.J. p 1134 note 11. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



irregularity which will render the judgment void- 
able rather than void. 12 If there was a demurrer 
to a defective count, which was erroneously over- 
ruled, the judgment is invalid where the record 
does not show affirmatively that the judgment rests 
exclusively on the good counts; 18 but all counts 
must be bad, however, to establish invalidity where 
there was no demurrer. 1 * Where the verdict is 
special, and responsive to a good count, a judg- 
ment thereon is, of course, unobjectionable.^ 
Where all the counts show a good cause of action, 
the judgment is not bad because it was general, al- 
though, on the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled 
to recover on some of the counts. 1 ^ 

42. Issues 

Ordinarily the pleading* In a cause must evolve an 
Issue of law or fact before a Judgment can regularly be 
rendered. 

Subject to exceptions which may occur in the 
case of judgments by confession, consent, or de- 
fault, as discussed infra 150-151, 174, 193, or 



following submission on an agreed rtatement of 
facts under principles considered infra 186, it is 
a general rule that the pleadings in a cause must 
evolve an issue of law or fact before a judgment 
can regularly be rendered. 17 A judgment rendered 
without issue joined or waived is erroneous, 18 some 
authorities holding that such a judgment is void 19 
and others that it is merely voidable. 2 ** When an 
issue is tried which is not within the pleadings, no 
duty rests on the trial court to render judgment 
thereon and its failure or refusal to do so is not 
erroneous. 21 



43. 



Determination of All Issues 



Generally a Judgment must dispose of all Issues In 
the case, either expressly or by necessary Implication. 

The prevailing rule under common law and stat- 
utes declaratory thereof requires a judgment to de- 
termine all issues 22 among all the parties, 23 except 
such issues as are waived or abandoned on the trial 
of the case. 24 So the judgment must be as broad 
as the issues and must respond to all the issues both 



18. Cat. Bank of America Nat 
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Hill, 71 
P.2d 258, 9 CaL2d 495. 

13. 111. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. 
Co. v. Barnes, 76 N.E. 629, 166 Ind. 
7, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 778. 

88 O.J. p 1185 note 12. 

14. Ind. Kelsey v. Henry, 48 Ind. 
37 Dice v. Morris, 82 Ind. 288. 

15. Pa. McCredy v. James, 6 
Whart. 547, 

Va. Binns v. Waddill, 82 Gratt. 588, 
73 Va. 88. 

16. Ala. Jones v. Belue, 200 So. 
886, 241 Ala. 22. 

88 C.J. p 1185 note 15. 

17. W.Va, Kinder v. Boomer Coal 
& Coke Co., 95 S.B. 580, 82 W.Va. 
82. 

83 C.J. p 1155 nte 21. 
Disposition of issues presented 

In the interest of certainty, Ju- 
dicial Judgments, should be limited 
strictly to disposition of issues ac- 
tually presented. Singer Mfg. Co. v. 
National Labor Relations Board, C 
C.A., 119 F.2d 181, certiorari denied 
61 S.Ct. 1119, 818 U.S. 595, 85 1*. 
Ed. 1549, rehearing denied 62 S.Ct 
55, 314 U.S. 708, 86 L.E3d. 565. 
Record held to show Joinder of is- 
sue 

Ala. Denhaxn v. Tancey, 95 So. 201, 
19 Ala.App. 45, certiorari denied 
Ez parte Denhaxn, 95 So. 202, 208 
Ala. 637. 

18. W.Va. CUne y. Star Coal & 
Coke Co., 153 S.E. 148, 109 W.Va. 
101. 

83 C.J. p 1135 note 22. 

19. La. Lacour Plantation Co. v. 
Jewell, 173 So. 761, 186 La. 1055, 



Rector v. Allied Van Lines, App., 
198 So. 516 Robinson v. Enloe, 
121 So. 320, 10 La.App. 435. 

Ohio. Binns v. Isabel, 12 Ohio Supp. 
115, affirmed 51 N.B.2d 501, 72 
Ohio App. 222. 

33 C.J. p 1135 note 24. 

20. Tenn. Doyle v. Smith, 1 Coldw. 
15. 

21. Neb. Bowman v. Cobb, 258 N. 
W. 535, 128 Neb. 289. 

22. Cal. Mather v. Mather, 140 P. 
2d 808, 22 Cal.2d 713 Nakamura 
v. Kondo, 223 P. 425, 65 CaLApp. 
211. 

Ga, South View Cemetery Ass'n v. 
Hailey, 34 S.E.2d 863, 199 Ga. 
478. 

Mo. Ex parte Fowler, 275 S.W. 529 
Gay v. Kansas City Public Service 
Co., App., 77 S.W.2d 133 Nokes v. 
Nokes, App.. 8 S.W.2d 879 Spring- 
field Gas & Electric Co. y. Frater- 
nity Bldg. Co., App., 264 S.W. 429. 
N.Y. Water Right & Electrical Co. 
v. Rockland Light & Power Co., 
280 N.T.S. 317, 245 App.Div. 739 
Maclvor v. -Schwartzman, 260 N.T. 
S. 707, 237 App.Div. 825. 
OkL-r Hurley v. Hurley, 127 P.2d 
147, 191 Okl. 194 Foreman v. Ri- 
ley, 211 P. 495, 88 Okl. 75. 
Tex. Southern Pac. Co. v. Ulmer, 
ConuApp., 286 S.W. 193 Harris v. 
O'Brien, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 277. 
Wyo. Norris v. United Mineral 

Products Co., 158 P.2d 679. 
33 C.J. p 1135 note 26. 
Disputed items; remission 

(1) In action on note and open ac- 
count, Judgment cannot be entered 
for admitted indebtedness reserving 
disputed items for subsequent trial,, 

101 



as this would result in two Judg- 
ments in one action. Lakin-Allen 
Electric Co. v. Lamb, 226 N.W. 229, 
247 Mich. 590. 

(2) If defendant tenders Judgment 
for a confessed amount, however, 
plaintiff may take Judgment for such 
amount, and thereby remit amount 
in dispute. Grand Dress v. Detroit 
Dress Co., 227 N.W. 723, 248 Mich. 
447. 

Eitner party may complain of and 
have reversal of Judgment which 
does not have effect of determining 
sole issue as to existence of con- 
tract on which plaintiff seeks to re- 
cover. McKeel v. Mercer, 29 P.2d 
939, 167 Okl. 413. 

23. Mo. Electrolytic Chlorine Co. 
v. Wallace & Tiernan Co.. 41 S.W. 
2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 
930 Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389. 

Tex. Patton v. Mitchell, CivJlpp., 
13 .S.W.2d 146. 

24. D.C. Anderson v. Mackey, 16 
D.C. 335. 

Ky. Hurley v. Hurley. 127 P.2d 147, 

191 Okl. 194. 
Okl. Foreman v. Riley, 211 P, 495, 

88 Okl. 75 Wells v. Shriver, 197 

P. 460, 81 Okl. 108. 
33 C.J. p 1136 note 28. 
Counterclaim 

In absence of showing that de- 
fendants pressed counterclaim, de- 
fendants will be held to have ac- 
quiesced in rendition of Judgment 
dismissing petition without dispos- 
ing of counterclaim, <Jity of St 
Louis ex reL and to Use of Sears 
v. (Clark, Mo.App., $5 S.W.2d 980. 



43 



JUDGMENTS 



49 .C.J.S. 



of law and fact, 25 and it must dispose of the entire 
subject matter of the litigation 26 and conclude all 
further inquiry into the issues joined by the plead- 
ings, leaving nothing further to be done except to 
carry the judgment into execution. 27 In rendering 
judgment the court may, however, properly disre- 
gard an immaterial issue. 28 A judgment will be 
held sufficient if it disposes of material issues by 
necessary implication even though it does not do so 
in formal terns, 29 and as a rule it will be presumed 
that the court passed on all questions properly pre- 
sented which under its own ruling it was possible 
for it to adjudge. 30 

Ordinarily judgment should not be rendered with- 



out disposing of matters raised by defendant's 
pleadings, 31 such as a counterclaim 82 or cross com- 
plaint, 33 unless the determination of the issue on 
which the judgment is based is necessarily decisive 
of the whole case 34 or the actions have been sepa- 
rated under statutes or court rules permitting such 
practice. 35 An answer filed by one of several de- 
fendants, which may be or become common to all, 
and which goes to the right of plaintiff to recover, 
precludes judgment against a codefendant until the 
issues have been disposed of by the court. 36 It has 
been held improper to render judgment on an inter- 
vention without at the same time acting on the prin- 
cipal action. 37 



25. Mo. Magee v. Mercantile-Com- 
merce Bank & Trust Co., 98 S.W. 
2d 614, 839 Mo. 559 Lummi Bay 
Packing* Co. v. Kryder, App., 1 
S.W. 543. 

Pa, Thompson v. Emerald Oil Co., 
123 A. 810, 279 Pa. 321. 

Tex. Standard Motor Co. v. Witt- 
man, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 186 Fort 
Worth Acid Works v. City of 
Tort Worth, Oiv.App., 248 S.W. 
822, affirmed City of Fort Worth 
v. Fort Worth Acid Works Co., 
Com.App., 259 S.W. 919. 

33 C.J. p 1136 note 27. 

26. Tex. Southern Trading Co. of 
Texas v. Feldman, Com. App., 259 
S.W. 566 Patton v. Mitchell, Civ. 
App., 13 S.W.2d 146 Lindsey v. 
Hart, Civ.App., 260 S.W. 286. 

27. Okl. Foreman v. Riley, 211 P. 
495, 88 Okl. 75. 

28. Tex. Miller v. Lemm, Com. 
App., 276 S.W. 211. 

29. Ga. Pittman Const. Co. v. City 
of Marietta, 172 S.E. 644, 177 Ga. 
573. 

Tex. Medearis v. Buratti, Civ.App., 
275 S.W. 617 Panhandle Grain & 
Elevator Co. v. Dowlin, Civ.App., 
247 S.W. 873. 

Judgment upheld as sufficiently dis- 
posing' of all issue* 

Mo. Saxbury v. Coons, 98 S.W.2d 
$62. 

Tex. Whisen-ant v. Cole, Civ.App., 
285 S.W. 835 Mathis v. Overland 
Automobile Co. of Dallas, Civ. 
App., 265 S.W. 1069. 

30. Ga. South View Cemetery 
Ass'n v. Hailey, 34 S.E.2d 863, 
199 Ga. 478. 

Tex. Cramer v. Cornell, Civ.App., 
108 S.W.2d 1115, reversed on oth- 
er grounds 130 S.W.2d 1023, 134 
Tex. 17. 
Effect of recital 

Recital in judgment that issues 
were found for defendant means all 
essential issues, including those 
raised by denial. Di Blasi v. Di 
Blasi, 163 A. 473, 116 Conn. 699. , 



Irrespective of whether or not 
pleaded, on the basis of Inescapable 
inherency, it may be assumed that 
the court passed on a constitutional 
question involved in the 'decision 
rendered.- State ex rel. Rose v. 
Webb City, 64 S.W.2d 597, 333 Mo. 
1127, transferred, see, App., 74 S.W. 
2d 45. 
31. Ky. Jones v. Stearns, 260 S.W. 

375, 202 Ky. 598. 
S.C. Watson v. Matley, 114 S.E. 

412, 121 S.C. 482. 
W.Va. Rosier v. McDaniel, 28 S.E. 

2d 908, 126 W.Va. 434. 
33 C.J. p 1156 note 29. 
Equitable defense 
Ky. Jones v. Stearns, 260 S.W. 373, 

202 Ky. 598. 
Flea of privilege 

Trial court was unauthorized to 
render Judgment on merits until it 
had finally disposed of plea of priv- 
ilege; and a controverting affidavit 
to plea of privilege presents real is- 
sues which must be tried and dis- 
posed of before, or at time of, dis- 
position of main cause, unless waiv- 
ed. Smith v. Watson, Tex.Civ.App., 
44 S.W.2d 815. 
312. Ky. Great Atlantic & Pacific 

Tea Co. v. Lexington-Hazard Ex- 
press Co.'s Receiver, 64 S.W.2d 

631, 246 Ky. 102. 
Mo. Liepman v. Rothschild, 262 S. 

W. 685, 216 Mo.App. 251. 
3a Cal. Browne v. T. J. Lawrence 

Co., 268 P. 631, 204 Cal. 424. 

34. Ky. Haywood v. Gooch, 86 S. 
W.2d 665, 260 Ky. 667. 

Mo. City of St. Louis ex rel. and 
to Use of Sears v. Clark, App., 35 
S.W.2d 986. 

Tex. Threadgill v. Fagan, Civ.App., 
64 S.W.2d 405 Williams v. Walk- 
er, Clv.App., 290 S.W. 299 Po- 
mona Mut Oil Syndicate v. Wil- 
liamsport Wire Rope Co., Civ.App., 
282 S.W. 958. 

33 C.J. p 1136 note -30. 

Necessary implication 

(1) Set-off or counterclaim need 

not be expressly mentioned in judg- 

102 



ment, provided it is disposed of by 
necessary implication. 'Prim v. La- 
tham, iTex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 175, 
error refused. 

(2) Judgment for plaintiff for 
amount sued for without mention- 
ing cross action by necessary impli- 
cation disposes of entire case. Pan- 
handle Compress & Warehouse Co. 
v. Best, Tex.Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 140. 
Unliquidated amount 
. Where plaintiffs' claim was par- 
tially unliquidated and defendants' 
counterclaim was also for unliqui- 
dated amount, judgment was in 
proper form and not for an impos- 
sible amount, judgment must be af- 
firmed, even though no reference 
was made therein to the counter- 
claim. Zappolo v. Lanigan, 285 N. 
Y.S. 863, 246 App.Div. 443, affirmed 
4 N.E,2d 815, 272 N.Y. 584. 

35. Tex. Latshaw v. Barnes, Civ. 
App., 170 S.W.Sd 531. 

Segregation under civil procedure 

rule 

Where court, under civil procedure 
rule, segregated cause of action aris- 
ing on petition of intervention and 
tried that cause separate from orig- 
inal cause of action and cross ac- 
tions, court was authorized to enter 
separate and final Judgment on such 
petition without finally disposing of 
issues raised by original suit or 
cross actions. Latshaw v. Barnes, 
supra. 

36. Ky. Rucker v. Baker, 177 S.W. 
2d 878, 296 Ky. 505. 

37* La. T i c k f a w Homegrowers' 
Ass'n v. Gallodoro, 132 So. 767, 15 
I/a, App. 686. 
Garnishment 

Judgment awarding plaintiff in 
garnishment suit, two interveners 
and garnishee amounts totaling less 
than sum shown by garnishee's an- 
swer to be due third intervener on 
judgment, claimed by latter to be ex- 
empt from garnishment, held not er- 
roneous as failing to dispose of 
amount. in controversy, remainder of 
funds in garnishee's hands being 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



44 



A failure to pass on a motion is immaterial, as 
the entry of judgment is in effect a final disposition 
of motions previously filed. 38 

Partial judgment under statute or ride. Under 
statutes or court rules providing that, where .after 
answer part of plaintiff's claim is admitted or tin- 
contested, plaintiff may have judgment for so much 
of his claim, subject to such terms as may be just, 
the intent is to enable the court of first instance 
to clear away portions of a claim or defense not 
involving disputed questions of fact by entering a 
partial judgment thereon. 3 ^ Such a statute should 
not be* so construed as to permit a judgment on 
. part of a cause of action where the part is an in- 

in effect awarded to third interven- 
er as exempt without necessity for 
rendition of Judgment in his favor 
for such amount Coles v. Pewel, 
Teac.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 323, error 
dismissed. 

38. 111. Washington Park Club v. 
Baldwin, 59 111. App. 61. 

33 C.J. p 1137 note 85. 

39. 'N.J. Warren Balderston Co. v. 
Ivory, 16 A.2d 617, 125 N.J.Law 
469. 

40. N.Y. Lowe v. Lowe, 192 N.E. 
291, 265 N.T. 197. 

41. Cal. Sheeny v. Roman Catholic 



complete fragment of an entire claim which cannot 
be thus divided without mutilation. 40 

44. Evidence 

As a general rule a Judgment must be supported by 
legally adduced evidence of a substantial and sufficient 
character, and a judgment may not rest on mere specu- 
lation, surmise, or suspicion. 

.While exceptions may occur in respect of judg- 
ments by confession or consent, or those entered on 
admissions or default, under principles discussed in- 
fra 162, 174, 185, 210-213, as a general rule the 
evidence must sustain the judgment, 41 proof being 
as essential to the support of a judgment as plead- 
ing. 42 The evidence must be of a substantial char- 
acter,^ sufficient to support the judgment ren- 
dered. 44 The judgment must be founded on suffi- 



Archbishop of San Francisco, 122 
P.2d 60, 49 Cal.App.2d 537. 

HI. Oak Park Trust & Savings 
Bank v. Soulias, 3 N.E.2d 159, 
284 Ill.App. 646. 

Ky. Producers' Coal Co. of Ken- 
tucky v. Barnaby, 275 S.W. 625, 
210 Ky. 244 City Bank & Trust 
Co. of Hopkinsville v. Dark To- 
bacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 272 
.S.W. 751, 209 Ky. 830. 

Mo. American Extension School of 
Law v. Ragland, 112 S.W.2d 110, 
232 Mo.App. 763 Brie City Iron 



Works v. Ferer, App., 
1008. 



263 S.W. 



N.X Automobile Ins. Co. of Hart- 
ford, Conn. v. Conway, 158 A. 480, 
109 N.J.EQ. 628 Rich v. Inter- 
City Transp. Co., 165 A. 296, 11 
N.J.Misc. 243. 

N.T. Sabl v. Laenderbank Wien Ak- 
tiengesellschaft, 80 N.T.S.2d 608, 
opinion supplemented 33 N.T.S.2d 
764. 

Or. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 
v. Zidell-Steinberg Co., 50 P.2d 
584, 151 Or. 5<38, modified on other 
grounds 51 P.2d 687, 151 Or. 538. 

S.B. Morrison v. Connery, 229 N.W. 
392, 56 S.D. 469. 

Tex. Cohen v. City of Houston, Civ. 
App., 185 S.W.2d 450 Shackelford 
v. Neilon, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 
, io37 Motley v. Tom Green Coun- 
ty, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 768, re- 



versed on other grounds Tom 
Green County v. Motley, 118 S.W. 
2d 306, 132 Tex. 54 Matrimonial 
Mut Ass'n of Texas v. Rutherford, 
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 719, error dis- 
missed Gilmer v. Graham, Civ. 
App., 26 S.W.2d 687, reversed on 
other grounds, Com.App., 52 S.W. 
2d 263 National Life & Accident 
Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Wash- 
ington, Civ.App. f 295 S.W. 204 
Austin Bros. Bridge Co. v. Road 
Dist No. -3 of Liberty County, 
Civ.App., 247 S.W. 674. 
Conformity of judgment to proof 

generally see infra 47-54. 
Arbitrary declaration, if without evi- 
dence 

A Judgment, entered without hear- 
ing evidence on basic issues of fact, 
is only arbitrary declaration of 
judge, having no reference to liabili- 
ty involved, even though purporting 
to be judicial determination of judg- 
ment creditors' rights. Burket v. 
Reliance Bank & Trust Co., 11 N.E. 
2d 6, 367 111. 196. 

42. Ky. ^Consolidation Coal Co. v. 
King, 244 S.W. 303, 196 Ky. 54. 

Tenn. Poster v. Andrews, 189 S. 
W.2d 580. 

Tex. Birdville Independent School 
Dist v. Deen, Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 
680, affirmed Deen v. Birdville In- 
dependent School Dist, 159 S.W.2d 
111, 138 Tex, 3-39 Forman v. Bar- 
ron, Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 827, er- 
ror refused Shackelford v. Nei- 
lon, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 1037 
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. 
Lincecum, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 549, 
reversed oil other grounds 107 S. 
W.2d 585, 130 Tex. 220 Karr v. 
Oockerham, Civ.App. f 71 S.W.2d 
905, error dismissed Morten Inv. 
Co. v. Trevey, Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d 
527, error dismissed Humble Oil 
& Refining Co. v. Southwestern 
Bell Telephone Co., Civ.App., 2 S. 
W.2d 488. 

33 C.J. p 1142 note 59. 

103 



43, U.S. U. S. v. Perry, C.C.A.Ark., 
55 F.2d 819. 

Miss. Moore v. Sykes' Estate, 149 
So. 789, 167 Miss. 212. 

Mont Ashley v/ Safeway Stores, 47 
P.2d 53, 100 Mont. 312. 

N.M. Jones v. Jernigan, 223 P. 100, 
29 N.M. 399. 

44* Ark. Brunson v. Teague, 186 S. 
W. 78, 123 Ark. 594. 

Fla. Blue Lake Celery Co. v. Pey- 
ton-Lofberg Live Stock Co., 94 So. 
862, 84 Fla. 675. 

Ga. Georgia Power Co. v. Woodall, 
172 S.E. 76, 48 Ga.App. 85. 

Idaho. Muckle v. Hill. 187 P. 943, 
32 Idaho 661. 

HI. Hopper v. Hopper, 41 N.E.2d 
786, -314 IlLApp. 572. 

Ky. Jordan v. City of Olive Hill, 
162 S.W.2d 229, 290 Ky* 828. 

Neb. Macumber v. Thomas, 207 N. 
W. 31, 114 Neb. 290. 

N.Y. Samuel Strauss & Co. v. Katz, 
206 N.Y.8. 246, 210 App.Div. 405 
Raby v. Greater New York De- 
velopment Co., 135 N.Y.S. 813, 
151 App.Div. 72, affirmed 104 N. 
E. 1139, 210 N.Y. 586 Phelan v. 
New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 
115 N.Y.S. 35 Putzel v. Fargo, 
103 N.Y.S. 766 Simon v. Danziger, 
98 N.Y.S. 674. 

OkL Steiner v. Steiner, 10 (P.2d 641, 
156 OkL 255 Barstow v. Chattee, 
239 P. 622, 112 Okl. 81. 

Pa. Pennsylvania Labor Relations 
Board v. Kaufmann Department 
Stores, 29 A.2d 90, 345 Pa, 398. 

Tex. Ketch v. Weaver Bros., Com. 
App., 276 S.W. 676 Cohen v. City 
of Houston, Civ. App., 185 S.W.2d 
450 Spradlin v. Gibbs, Civ.App., 
159 S.W.Bd 246 Corona Petroleum 
Co. v. Jameson, Civ. App., 146 S. 
W.2d 512, error dismissed, judg- 
ment correct Christie v. Hud- 
speth County Conservation and 
Reclamation Dist. No. 1, Civ.App., 
64 S.W.2d 978^-Carpenter v. Par- 
mer County, OV.APP., 61 S.W.2d 



44 



JUDGMENTS 



49 O.J.S. 



cient facts legally ascertained, 4 * and cannot rest on 
evidence of an incompetent character, 46 or which 
was never adduced in court, 47 such as matters not 
put in evidence of which the court took judicial 
notice. 48 A judgment may not rest on conjecture 
and speculation 49 or on mere surmise or suspi- 
cion, 50 nor may a judgment find support in assump- 
tions 51 or in possibilities or probabilities falling 
short of actual proof. 52 While an inference of the 



truth of facts essential to a cause of action will sup- 
port a judgment rendered in accordance with such 
facts, 53 the court should not base its judgment on 
a state of facts so inadequately developed that it 
cannot be determined where inference ended and 
conjecture began. 54 However, it is not essential to 
the validity of a judgment that it rest entirely on 
uncontradicted evidence, 55 and it is not fatal that a 
different conclusion might have been reached on all 



Wash. Johnson v. Goo'denough, 175 

OP. 306. 103 Wash. 625. 
83 C.J. p 1141 note 57, p 1142 note 

58, p 1164 note 9647 C.J. p 1009 

note 88. 
Prlma facie ca* 

Even though defendant flies no 
answer, plaintiff in civil proceeding, 
whether summary or ordinary, must 
at least make out prima facie case 
before being entitled to Judgment. 
Grosjean v. Wallace Johnson Mo- 
tor Co., La.App., 171 So. 184. 
Evidence held sufficient to support 

(1) Generally. 

U.S. State Bank of New York v. 
Henderson County, Ky., C.C.A.Ky., 
35 F.2d 859, certiorari denied Hen- 
derson County, State of Kentucky, 
v. State Bank of New York, 50 S. 
Ct. 245, 281 U.S. 728, 74 L.Ed. 1144, 
1145. 

Ky. Small v. Minton, 192 S.W.2d 
184. 

Tex. St. Louis -Southwestern Ry. 
Co. of Texas v. Neely, Civ.App., 
296 S.W. 948. 

(2) Judgment foreclosing mechan- 
ics' liens held not objectionable as 
rendered on unverified account to 
admissibility of which defendants 
excepted, where other facts showed 
amount due. Boozer v. Smith, Tex. 
Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 10S4, error dis- 
missed. 

(3) A judgment which did not 
state whether it <was based on one or 
both counts of declaration was 
without error if evidence sustained 
either count. Yeats v. Moody, 175 
So. 719, 128 Fla. 658. 

(4) Judgment solely on evidence 
prior to .filing of amended pleadings 
bringing in new. parties held not 
erroneous where court prior to judg- 
ment ordered dismissal of new par- 
ties and no new issue was raised .by 
amendment. McCreary v. Falconer, 
44 P.2d 303, S Cal.2d 335. 

45. Tex. Motley v. Tom Green 
County, Civ,App., 93 S.W.2d 768, 
reversed on other grounds Tom 
Green County v. Motley, 118 S.W. 
2d 306, 132 Tex. 54 Blalock v. 
Jones, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 400, er- 
ror dismissed* 

46. Mich* Refrigerating Equipment 
Co. v. Finch, 242 N.W. 217. 257 
Mich. 023. 



Tex. -Hood v, Robertson, Civ.App., 

33 S.W.2d 82. 
W.Va. Board of Trustees of Lewis 

Pilchard Charity Fund v. Mankin 

Inv. Co., 193 S.E. 805, 119 W.Va. 

391. 
Unlawful search and seizure 

A civil judgment, in the procure- 
ment of which evidence obtained 
through unlawful search and seizure 
in violation of the Fourth Amend- 
ment to federal Constitution is used, 
is invalid. -Rogers v. U. S., C.C.A.R. 
I., 97 F.2d 691. 
Evidence as to unpleaded matters 

(1) Evidence not based on any 
pleadings is incompetent and will 
not support a judgment, even though 
admitted by court without objection. 
Stone v. Boone, Tex.Civ.App., 160 
S.W.2d 578, error refused. 

(2) Evidence adduced on an issue 
not made by the pleadings will not 
support a judgment. Mullinax v. 
Snorgrass, Tex.Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 
1080, error refused. 

(3) Necessity of pleadings as 
well as evidence to support judg- 
ment see supra 40. 

Evidence which has been stricken 
will not sustain a judgment. In re 
Jolly's Estate, 229 IlLApp. 508. 

47. Mo. State ex rel. National 
Lead Co. v; Smith, App., 134 S.W. 
2d 1061. 

Pa. Riedrich v. Riedrich, 62 Pa. 

Super. 189. 
Tex. Church v. Western Finance 

Corporation, Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 

1074. 

TTnoffered exhibits 
Mo. Carroll v. Carroll, App., 237 S. 

W. 843 Taylor v. Fuqua, 219 S.W. 

971, 203 Mo.App. 581. 

48. Mo. -Hume v. Wright, 274 S.W. 
741 State ex rel. National Lead 
Co. v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 
106-1. 

49. U.S. Deposit Guaranty Bank & 
Trust Co. v. U. S., D.aMlss., 48 
F.'Supp. 869 Orrill v. Prudential 
Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Cal., 
44 FjSupp. 902 Greenwood Com- 
press &, Storage Co. v. Fly, D.C. 
Miss., 24 F.Supp. 168, reversed on 
other grounds, C.C.A., 102 F.2d 
600. 

Ky.-r-Central Kentucky Natural Gas 
Co. v. Williams, 60 S.W.2d 580, 
249 Ky. 242. 

104 



Mich. Michigan Aero Club v. Shel- 
ley, 278 N.W. 121, 283 Mich. 401. 

Miss. Blizzard v. Fitzsimmons, 10 
So.2d 343, 193 Miss. 484 Furr v. 
Brookhaven Creamery, 192 So. 838, 
188 Miss. 1. 

Mo. Locke v. Warden, App., '179 S. 
W.2d 624 Brinker v. Miller, App.. 
162 S.W.2d 295 Bauer v. Wood, 
154 S.W.2d 356, 2-36 Mo.App. 266. 

Nev. Richards v. Vermilyea, 175 P. 
188,. 42 Nev. 294, rehearing denied 
180 P. 121, 42 Nev. 294. 

50. Cal. -De Hart v. Allen, 111 P.2d 
342, 43 Cal.App.2d 479. 

Miss. Blizzard v. Fitzsimmons, 10 

So.2d 343, 193 Miss. 484. 
Existence of fact 

If evidence raises only a surmise 
or suspicion of the existence of a 
fact sought to be established, a 
judgment will not be permitted to 
rest on such fact Shell Oil Co. v. 
Howth, 159 S.W.2d 483, 138 Tex. 
357. 

51. La. Cali v. Cloverland Dairy 
Products Co., App., 21 So.2d 166. 

Nev. Richards v. Vermilyea, 175 P. 
188, 42 Nev. 294, rehearing denied 
180 P. 121, 42 Nev. 294. 

52. La. Evans v. Campbell, App., 
9 So.2d 91. 

Mich. Michigan Aero Club v. Shel- 
ley, 278 N.W. 121, 283 Mich. 401. 
Miss. Furr v. Brookhaven Cream- 
ery, 192 So. 838, 188 Miss. 1. 
Pa. Winograd v. Coombs, 20 A,2d 

315, 342 Pa. 268. 
What might have been 

Judgments cannot be rendered on 
what might have been,^ but there 
must be proof fairly tending to e&- 
tablish fact alleged. Salaban 'v. 
East St. Louis & Interurban Water 
Co., 1 N.E.2d 731, 284 Ill.App, 358. 

53. Cal. Gish v. Los Angeles Ry. 
Corporation, 90 P.2d 792, 13 Cal. 
2d 570. 

54. Miss. Moore v. Sykes* Estate, 
149 So. 789, 167 Miss. 212. 

55. Okl. -Bradley v. Little, 134 P.2d 
126, 192 Okl. 121. 

Function of Jury 

Trial court is under no duty to de- 
termine by its judgment truth or 
talsity of evidentiary facts, which 
is for jury incidentally as a means 
of determining its verdict. South- 
ern Pine Lumber Co. v. Whiteman, 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



45 



the evidence adduced; 56 but a valid judgment may 
not be predicated on evidence that cannot be true. 57 

The insufficiency of supporting evidence has in 
some instances been held to render a judgment 
void, 5 ' 8 but in others it has been regarded as render- 
ing the judgment merely erroneous but not void. 59 
It has been held that a judgment is not rendered 
void by irregularities in the taking of proof, 6 ** or by 
perjured testimony. 61 



45. Verdict and Findings 

A valid Judgment must be predicated on the deci- 
sion, findings, or verdict of the trial court OP Jury. 

The issues raised by the pleadings, whether of 
law or fact, must be determined in favor of one 
party or the other before judgment can be entered; 
there* must be either decision or findings by the 
court or referee 62 or the verdict of a jury. 63 Where 
a case is tried to the court and a jury is called to 



TexJCiv.App.. 104 S.W.*d 635. error 
dismissed. 

56. Okl. Bradley v. Little, 134 P.2d 
126, 192 Okl. 121. 

57. U.S. V. W. Woolworth Co. v. 
Davis, C.C.A.Okl., 41 F.2d 342, 
certiorari denied 51 S.Ct 33, 282 
U.S. 859. 75 LJEd. 760. 

Total disability 

Evidence that an insured was to- 
tally disabled within the meaning of 
a war risk insurance policy could 
not support a judgment on the poli- 
cy where such evidence could not 
have been true in view of the fact 
that it was conclusively shown that 
during the period of alleged total 
disability insured continuously fol- 
lowed a substantially gainful occu- 
pation. U. S. v. Perry, .C.OA.Ark., 
55 F.2d *19. 

58. La, Fields v. McAdams, App., 
15 So.2d 24$. 

N.J. Gimbel Bros v. Corcoran, 192 

A. 715, 15 N.J.Misc. 5*8. 
Tenn. -Lewis v. Burrow, 127 S.W.2d 

795, 23 Tenn.App. 145. 



error 



A judgment unsupported by testi- 
mony is fundamentally erroneous. 
Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. 
Lumpkin, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W. 
1194. 

59. Ky. - Starbird v. Blair, 12 S.W. 

2d 693, 227 Ky. 258 Reed v. Bun- 

yan, 10 S.W.2d 824, 226 Ky. 261 

Sizemore v. Hunter, 269 S.W. 

542. 207 Ky. 453 Spencer v. Mil- 

liken, 4 Ky.L. 856. 
N.T. Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 N.T. 

427 In re Jenkins, 117 N.T.S. 74, 

132 App.Div. 339. 
Term. Globe & Republic Ins. Co. of 

America v. Shields, 96 S.W.2d 947, 

170 Tenn. 485. 
33 C.J. p 1141 note 57 [a] 34 C.J. 

p 563 note S3. 
Secondary evidence 

Judgment based on secondary evi- 
dence is not within itself void. 
Busby v. First Nat. Bank, Tex. 
Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 328, error dis- 
missed. 

80. Ky. -Haddix v. Walter, 266 S. 
W. 631, 205 Ky. 740. 



Failure to take down testimony in 
writing and file it was held not to 
render decree void. Malone v. 
Meres, 109 So. 677. 91 Fla. 709. 

61. Colo. Hunt v. Hunt, 264 P. 662, 
83 Colo. 282, error dismissed 49 
S.Ct. 186, 278 U.S. 583, 73 L.Ed. 
519. 

B.C. Hodge v. Huff, 140 F.2d 686, 78 
U.S.App.D.C. 329, certiorari denied 
64 S.Ct 946, 322 U.S. 733, 88 L. 
Ed. 1567. 

Perjury as ground for: 
.Collateral attack see infra S 434. 
Equitable relief against judgment 

see infra 374. 
Opening and vacating Judgment 

see infra 270. 

62. Cal. Easterly v. Cook, 85 P.2d 
164, 140 CaLApp. 115. 

Ga. Corpus Juris cited in Holton 
v. Lankford, 6 S.E.2d 304, 310, 
189 Ga. 506. 

Md. Carozza v. Brannan, 46 A.2d 
198. 

N.T. Fuller v. Galeota, 51 N.T.S.2d 
101, 268 App.Div. 949 Donate v. 
Granite State Fire Ins. Co., 288 
N.T.S. 639, 248 App.Div. 736 
Flagg v. Moses, 225 N.T.S. 508, 
222 App.Div. 762, motion denied 
226 N.T.S. 392, 222 App.Div. 821, 
and affirmed 162 N.E. 504, 248 N. 
T. 509 Abell v. Hunter, 207 N.T. 
S. 203, 211 App.Div. 467, affirmed 
148 N.E. 766, 240 N.T. 702 Shaul 
v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Mary- 
tend. 227 N.T.S. 16-3, 131 Misc. 401, 
affirmed 230 N.T.S. 910, 224 App. 
Div. 773. 

Pa. Massachusetts Bonding & In- 
surance Co. v. Johnston & Harder, 
16 A.2d 444, 840 Pa. 253. 

S.D. Central Loan & Investment 
Co. v. Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59 
S.D. 255. 

Utah. Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v. 
Mason, 160 P.2d 734 Mason v. 
Mason, 160 P.2d 730 Evans v. 
Shand, 280 <P. 239, 74 Utah 451. 

Vt. Town of Randolph v. Lyon, 175 
A. 1, 106 Vt 495. 

33 C.J, p 1137 note 3764 C.J. p 1223 
note 32. 

Finding* as equivalent to verdict 
.For the purposes of judgment, the 

trial court's findings of fact have 

the effect of a "verdict"- Watson 

105 



v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of 
Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 357. 

When finding's unnecessary 

Findings" of fact by the court have 
been held unnecessary where there 
is a verdict. Dye v. Russell, 40 N. 
W. 416, 24 Neb. 829. 

Conclusions inconsistent 

If findings support judgment, in- 
consistencies between conclusions 
are immaterial and do not vitiate 
judgment. Klein Norton Co. v. Co- 
hen, 290 P. 61*, 107 CoLApp. 325. 

63. U.S. Connally v. Louisville & 
N. R. Co., C.C.A.Miss., 297 F. 180. 

Ala. Scott v. Parker, 113 So. 495, 
216 Ala. 321. 

Cal. Vitimtn Milling Corporation v. 
Superior Court In and for Los An- 
geles County, 33 P.2d 1016, 1 CaL 
2d 116. 

Ga. Corpus Juris cited in Holton v. 
Lankford, 6 S.R2d 304, 310, 189 
Ga. 506. 

Mo. Newdiger v. Kansas City, App., 
106 S.W.2d 51, affirmed 114 S.W.2d 
1047, 342 Mo. 252. 

N.C. Miller v. Dunn, 124 S.E. 746, 
188 N.C. 397. 

Tex. American Nat Ins. Co, T. 
Points, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 762, 
error dismissed Dallas Coffin Co. 
v. Teager, Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 156, 
error dismissed Cisco Building 
& Loan Ass'n v. Mason, Civ.App., 
12 S.W.2d 1106 TTair v. Wichita 
Valley Ry. Co.. Civ.App., 274 S.W. 
247 Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. 
v. Lowrie, CivJLpp^ 271 S.W. 268. 

Va. Scheckler v. Andersom, 29 an 
2d 867, 182 Va, 701. 

35 C.J. p U37 note 38. 

Indispensable step 

Where there was no waiver of ft 
trial by jury, its verdict was an in- 
dispensable step in the proceedings, 
and trial court was without powqr 
to enter a final judgment in, absence 
thereof. Heath v. Moers, 199 S.E. 
519, 171 Va, 397. 

Approval of verdict 

The trial court must .approve a 
verdict before a judgment can be 
based on it Fraka* v. Travelers 
Mut Casualty Co.,. 84 P.24 871, 148 
Kan. 637. 



45 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



make findings as to certain issues, judgment should 
be rendered on the basis of findings of the jury ac- 
cepted by the court, plus findings of fact made by 
the court on other issues and conclusions of law 
based on all such findings. 64 

A valid judgment must rest on findings, express 
or implied, on all material issues. 65 The findings 
of the court 66 or the findings or verdict of the ju- 
ry 67 must be of a character sufficient to support the 



judgment rendered, and ordinarily the latter may 
not be aided by intendment or reference to extrinsic 
facts. 68 Although it has been held that it must ap- 
pear that there was a direct and affirmative finding 
on every issue of fact essential to recovery, 6 ^ it 
has also been held that, where the court fails to 
make formal findings, every finding justified by the 
record and necessary to support the judgment will 
be implied, 70 and that a general judgment is deemed 



64. Cal. Alphonzo B. Bell Corp. v 
Listle, App., 169 P.2d 462. 

Matter Juriidictional 

Findings on issues other than 
those specifically found by jury in 
answer to special interrogatories be- 
ing necessary to support Judgment, 
matter held jurisdiction^, findings 
not having been waived. Central 
Loan & Investment Co. v. Loiseau, 
239 -N.W. 487, 59 S.D. 265. 

65, Mont. Blaser v. Clinton Irriga 
tion Dist, 53 OP.2d 1141, 100 Mont 
459. 

N.C. Bborn v. Ellis, 85 S.B.2d -288 

225 N.C. 386. 

Tex. English v. Blackwood, Civ. 
App., 128 S.W.2d 895, error dis- 
missed Judgment correct 
Wis. Witt v. Wonser, 219 N.W. 844, 
195 Wis. 593. 

Omnibus Hading that material al- 
legations in named paragraphs of 
defendant's affirmative defense were 
not proved was insufficient to sup- 
port Judgment Gordon v. Beck, 239 
P. 309. 196 Cal. 768. 
General verdict 

(1) Judgment cannot be supported 
by jury's determination on isolated 
issues in answer to special interrog- 
atories without general verdict 
Central Loan & Investment Co. v. 
Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59 &D. 255. 

(2) In action on disability clause 
of group life and health policy, ver- 
dict for insured for total amount of 
his certificate held "general verdict" 
which could serve as proper basis 
for judgment Eauitable Life As- 
sur. Soc. of U. S. v. Goble, 72 S,W^2d 
35, 254 Ky. 614. 

Special verdict 

Where special verdict contains no 
finding on vital issue of fact con- 
cerning which testimony is conflict- 
ing, it will not support judgment for 
plaintiff. Hintz v. Jackson, 198 N. 
W. 475, 51 N.D. 13. 

Verdict requiring entry of Judgment 
Although jury need not in all cas- 
es answer all issues presented, be- 
fore judgment can be entered for 
either party, the verdict must be 
such as to require the entry of a 
judgment. Bowen Motor Coaches v. 
Young, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 145. 
When there wag no finding on 
certain evidence, judgment could not 
be held to have been based thereon. 



Willard v. Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist N.H. Holman v. Kingsbury, 4 N.H. 
258 P. 959, 201 Cal. 726. 104. 



Judgment on merit* 

Fact findings are made by court 
only on issues raised by pleadings 
and evidence produced on trial, and 
Judgments- on merits are entera 
only on findings so made, rulings on 
demurrer when pleading over is not 
served, or motion for Judgment on 
pleadings, agreed case, or consent of 
party against whom it runs.rAn- 
gers v. Sabatinelli, 1 N.W.2d 765 
239 Wis. S 64 Luebke v. City of Wi 
tertown, 284 N.W. 519, 230 Wis. 512. 

66- CaL Winstanley v. Ackerman, 

294 P. 449, 110 CaLApp. 641. 
Mo. Buschow Lumber Co. v. Un- 
ion Pac. H. Co., 276 S.W. 409, 220 
Mo.App. 743 Kentling & Kentling 
v. Magers, App., 256 S.W. 528. 
N.J. Motor Finance Corporation v. 
Tar Asphalt Trucking Co., 21 A.2d 
350, 127 N.J.Law 60. 
N.Y. Sutphen v. Morey, 212 N.Y.S. 

43, 214 App.Div. 164. 
Or. State v. Warren Const Co., 276 

P. 260, 129 Or. 58. 
83 C.J. p 964 note 60. 
Finding- supported by inadmissible 

evidence 

Judgment based on finding sup- 
ported by inadmissible evidence is 
erroneous. Donnell v. Baker, Tex. 
Civ. App., 15 S.W.2d 120, error dis- 
missed., 

Judgment held sufficiently supported 

(1) Generally. 

Cal. Arena v. Bank of Italy, 228 P. 

441, 194 Cal. 195. 
Vt-^Campbell v. Ryan, 22 A.2d 502, 

112 Vt 238<3ooley v. Hatch, 124 

A, 589, 97 Vt 484. 

(2) It has been held that a decree, 
finding that certain of the parties 
to the suit are owners of the real 
estate in controversy, fixing the in- 
.eres't of each, and decreeing par- 
:ition accordingly, is not defective 

because without general findings of 
''act. Rackemann v. Tllton, 86 N.E. 
68, 236 111. 49. 

67. Colo. -fflStna Casualty & Surety 

Co. v. Finance Service Corporation, 

2-26 P. 153, 75 Colo. 432. 
HL -War-field v. Patterson, 135 IlL 

App. 307, appeal dismissed 84 N. 

E. 176, 233 III. 147. 

106 



Tex. Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co. 
v. Browder, Com. App., 283 S.W. 
154 Union Indemnity Co. v. Col- 
orado Nat. Bank, Civ.App., 38 S.W. 
2d 257 -Ratcliffe v. Ormsby, Civ. 
App., 298 S.W. 930, error denied 
Ormsby v. Ratcliffe, 1 S.W.2d 1084, 
117 Tex. 242 Jaco v. W. A. Nash 
Co., Civ.App., 269 S.W. 1089. 

Wash. Bino v. Veenhuizen, 250 P. 
450, 141 Wash. 18, 49 A.L.R. 1297. 

Advisory verdict 

Jury verdict, effect of which is ad- 
visory only, will not support Judg- 
mentCentral Loan & Investment, 
Co. v. Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59 
S.D. 255. 

Support by evidence 

Unless Jury's finding is supported 
by evidence, judgment should not be 
entered thereon. Houston & T. C. 
R. Co. v. Pruitt, Tex.Civ.App., 293 
S.W. 627. 

Judgment sufficiently supported 1)7 

Jury findings or verdict 
Cal. Fairbanks v. Macready, 268 

P. 947, 92 Cal.App. 156~<Jadwalla- 

der v. Martin, 257 P. 638, 83 Cal. 

App. 666. 

Okl. Houser v. Ivey, 249 P. 141. 119 

Okl. 42. 
Tex. Martin v. Hays, Civ.App., 86 

S.W.2d 796, error refused. 

68. Ala. Capital Cab Co. v. Mont- 
gomery Fair, 104 So. 891, 20 Ala. 
App. 648, certiorari denied Ex 
parte Capital Cab Co., 104 So. 892, 
213 Ala. 429. 

69. Ala. Capital Cab Co. v. Mont- 
gomery Fair, 104 So. 891, 20 Ala. 
App. 648, certiorari denied Ex 
parte Capital Cab Co., 104 So. 892. 
213 Ala. 429. 

Conclusion of ultimate fact 

A statement in judgment or de* 
cree, entered after hearing conflict- 

ng evidence, may be regarded as 
conclusion of ultimate fact or at 

east of mixed law and fact, even 
though same allegation in pleading 
might be construed as conclusion of 

aw. Label v. Sullivan, 165 S.W.2d 

39, 350 Mo. 286. 

0. Mont Blaser v. Clinton Irr. 
Dist. 53 P.2d 1141. 100 Mont 459. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



46 



to include a special finding on all issues necessary 
to sustain k. 7 * While a valid judgment may not 
be based on findings or verdict as to an immaterial 
issue, 72 where the judgment otherwise finds suffi- 
cient support, the fact that some of the findings are 
immaterial or without the issues will not invalidate 
it. 73 The failure to find as to a particular issue of 
fact is immaterial where the fact is admitted. 74 

A judgment rendered without either verdict or 
findings is irregular and erroneous, 7 ^ and has been 
held premature and void ; 76 but the more generally 
accepted view is that such a judgment is merely 
voidable and is not absolutely void 77 and that fail- 
ure of verdict and findings to support the judgment 



is a defect subject to waiver. 78 Since the power 
to decide includes the power to decide erroneously, 
a judgment is not void because of an erroneous 
finding of fact, 79 especially where such error was 
inadvertent and harmless and not determinative of 
the main issue. 80 

Decision in writing as basis for judgment. Ordi- 
narily a judgment should be entered on the basis 
of a decision in writing, 81 and may not be predicat- 
ed merely on the opinion, 82 oral direction, 83 or 
unsigned memorandum 84 of the court, or on an en- 
try in the minutes of the clerk; 85 but absence of 
a decision in due form has been held not fatal to a 
judgment. 86 



E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 



46. Conformity to Process 

A Judgment should conform to the process served, as, 
for example, with respect to parties and 'the amount of 
the recovery. 

A judgment should conform to the writ or proc- 
ess served. 87 Accordingly, where process is di- 
rected to, and served on, a party as an individual, 



judgment may not be rendered against him in a 
representative capacity, and vice versa. 88 Likewise, 
process addressed to, and served on, an individual 
is not sufficient on which to base a judgment against 
a corporation. 89 

The amount of recovery must conform to, and is 



71. Mass. In re Rothwell's Estate, 
186 N.E. 662. 28-3 Mass. 563 An- 
derson v. Bean, 172 N.E. 647, 272 
Mass. 432, 72 A.L.R. 959. 

Okl. Riddle v. Brann, 131 P.2d 999, 
191 Okl. 596 Stan er v. McGrath, 
51 P.2d 795, 174 Okl. 454. 
Delay in instituting- stilt 

A judgment for plaintiff in action 
for accounting and to recover her 
one-sixth interest in proceeds of 
sale of mining property was a find- 
ing against her alleged unneces- 
sary delay to instituting action. 
Scott v. Symons, 216 P. 604, 191 Cal. 
441. 

72. Fla. Merchants & Bankers 
Guaranty Co. v. Downs, 175 So. 
704, 128 Fla. 7*7. 

N.J. Motor Finance Corporation v. 

Tor Asphalt Trucking Co.. 21 A.2d 

350, 127 N.J.Law 60. 
N.T. Miller v. Union Indemnity Co., 

204 N.TjS. 7<30, 209 App.Div. 455. 
Tex. Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Shaw, 

Civ.App., 284 S.W. 600. 

73. Mont Huffine v. Lincoln, 287 
P. 629, 87 Mont 267. 

74. N.C. Seawell v. Person, 76 S. 
E. 2, 160 N.C. 291. 

33 C.J. p 1138 note 42. 

75. Cal. Easterly v. Cook, 35 P.2d 
164, 140 Cal.App. 115. 

Ga. Corpus Juris cited In Holton 

v. Lankford, 6 S.E.2d 304, 310, 

189 Ga. 506. 
Tex. American Rio Grande Land & 

Irrigation <Jo. v. Bellman, Civ. 

App., 272 S.W. 550. 



Vt Town of Randolph v. Lyon, 

175 A. 1, 106 Vt. 495. 
33 C.J. p 964 note 57, p 1138 note 

39, p 1170 note 37. 

76. Cal. Casner v. Daily News Co., 
106 P.2d 201, 16 Cal.2d 410 Viti- 
min Milling Corporation v. Superi- 
or Court in and for Los Angeles 
County, SiS P.2d 1016, 1 Cal.2d 
116 In re Dodds' Estate, 126 P. 
2d 150, 52 Cal.App.2d 287 Easter- 
ly v. Cook, 35 P.2d 164, 140 Cal. 
App. 115. 

77. N.C. Ellis V. Ellis, 130 S.B. 7, 
190 N.C. 418. 

Okl. Mid-Continent Pipe Line. Co. 

v. Seminole County Excise Board, 

146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40. 
Or. Corpus Juris cited in Glickman 

v. Solomon, 12 P.2d 1017, 1018, 140 

Or. 358, followed 12 P.2d 1018, 140 

Or. 364, overruling Frederick & 

Nelson v. Bar, 134 P. 318, 66 Or. 

259, and Clackamas Southern Ry. 

Co. v. Vick, 144 P. 84, 72 Or. 580. 
Wyo. Garber v. Spray, 164 P. 840, 

25 Wyo. 52. 
33 C.J. p 1138 note 40, p 1170 note 

38. 

78. N.Y. Corn Exchange Bank v. 
Blye, 28 N.E. 805, 119 N.T. 414. 

79. U.S. Jack y. Hood, CXLA.OkL. 
39 F.2d 594. 

Findings contrary to evidence 
have been held not to render the 
judgment void. In re Gardiner's Es- 
tate, 114 P.2d 645, 45 CaLApp.2d 
559. 
80- U.S. Jack v. Hood, COA-Okl., 

39 F.2d 594. 

107 



81. S.D. Sinclair Refining Co. v. 
Larson, 214 N.W. 842, 51 SJX 443. 

82. N.Y. Reynolds v. -3Btna Life 
Ins. Co., 39 N.T.S. 885, 6 App.Div. 
254. 

Utah. Wasatch Oil Refining Co. V. 

Wade, 63 P.2d 1070, 92 Utah 50. 
Wash. Adams v. Ernst, 95 P.2d 799, 

1 Wash.2d 254. 
33 C.J. p 1137 note 87 [b], [c], 

83. N.T. Shaul v. Fidelity & De- 
posit Co. of Maryland, 227 N.T.S. 
163, 131 Misc. 401, affirmed 230 N. 
T.S. 910, 224 App.Div. 773. 

84. N.T. Corley v. Spitzer, 255 N. 
T.S. 601, 235 AppJMv. 703 Torge 
V. Loomis, 21-3 N.T.S. 924; 215 App. 
Div. 862 Woolf v. Woolf, 215 N. 
T.S. 89, 126 Misc. 868. 

85. N.T. Electric Boat Co. v. How- 
ey, 89 N.T.S. 210, 96 App.Div. 410. 

33 OX p 1137 note 37 [b]. 

86. N.T. Lyon v. Water Com'rs of 
City of Binghamton, 232 N.T.S. 
26, 224 App.Div. 568. 

87. U.S. Hughes v. Union Ins. Co., 
Md., 8 Wheat. 294, 5 L.Ed 620. 

33 C.J. p 1138 note 44. 

88. Fla. Fllmi v. Lisenby, 1-36 So. 
599, 102 Fla. 777. 

Divestiture of title 



Where, in trespass to try title, 
defendant was served as individual 
only, judgment divested him of title 
individually, but not as trustee. 
Blair v. Carney, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S. 
W.2d 1031, error refused. 
89. La. Norwich Union Indemnity 

Co. v. Judlln & WMtmire, 7 La. 

App. 879. 



47 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.& 



limited by, the writ 9 * Accordingly, where the 
judgment is by default, the amount of recovery is 
limited to the sum specified in the summons or in- 
dorsed on the copy served, 91 and a judgment for 
a greater sum has b^en held absolutely void, 92 
although such judgment has also been held to be 
regular and valid if it is within the sum demanded 
in the declaration. 93 Where, however, defendant 
appears and answers, the judgment is not limited to 
the amount indorsed on the summons. 94 

47. Conformity to Pleadings and Proofs 

The rules respecting conformity of judgments to 
the pleadings and proofs, and the applications of 
such rules, are considered in detail infra 48-54. 



Examine Pocket Parts for later cases. 



48. 



General Rules 



A Judgment should be supported by both the plead- 
ings and the proofs, although in this connection substan- 
tial accordance is sufficient, and the pleadings are to 
be taken as a whole. 

A court may not properly put on its record a 
judgment which is not a proper sequence to the 
pleadings, 95 at least without the consent of all per- 
sons affected. 96 It is a general rule that a recovery 
must be had, if at all, on the facts alleged in the 
pleadings; the judgment must conform to, and be 
supported by, the pleadings in the case. 97 It is 
likewise a general rule that facts proved but not 



Party against whom process may is- 
sue In actions against corporations 
see Corporations 1308. 

90. Ala, Carroll y. Milner, 9 So. 
221, 93 Ala. 301. 

33 C.J. p 1138 note 45. 

91. N.J. Rips v. Levitan, 130 A. 
882, 3 N.J.Misc. 1166, motion de- 
nied 132 A. 926, 4 N.J.Hisc. 314. 

33 C.J. p 1139 note 46. 

92. Kan. -Basset v. Mitchell, 19 P. 
671. 

33 C.J. p 1139 note 47. 

93. 111. Plato v. Turrill, 18 HI. 273. 
33 C.J. p 11-39 note 48. 

94. N.Y. Valencia Realty Co. v. 
Seely, 192 A. 717, 15 N.J.Misc. 520. 

33 C.J. p 1139 note 49. 

95. Ind. Indianapolis Real Estate 
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, 98 
Ind.App. 72. 

Mo. Owens v. McCleary. App., 273 

S.W. 145. 
Tex. Automobile Finance Co. v. 

Bryan, Civ. App., <3 S.WV2d 835 

Smith v. Scott, Civ.App., 261 S.W. 

1089. 
Va. Dulaney v. Smith, 149 S.E. 441, 

153 Va. 118. 
3i3 C.J. p 1139 note 51. 

A court of record, in order to act, 
must find a basis in the pleading 
for its action. Green v. Duncan, 
Tex.Civ.App., 1-34 S.W.2d 744. 

96. TJ.-S, Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C. 
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852. 

S3 C.J. p 11*39 note 51 [a}. 
Issues broadened by consent see in- 
fra 50, 

The rule cannot be circumvented 
by allowing amendments to the 
pleadings to change a cause of ac- 
tion after judgment, or by giving 
notice of the entry of judgment, or 
by entertaining motions to vacate 
a judgment after it has been enter- 
ed. Sylvan Beach v. Koch, supra. 

97. US. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. 
Bingley, Wash., 100 F. 408, 40 C. 
C.A. 459, 49 UR.A. 132, reversed 
.on other grounds 22 S.Ct 937, 184 



U.S. 695, 46 L.Bd. 763 U. S. v. 
E. H. Bailey & Co., 32 C.C.P.A. 
Customs 89. 

Ala. Corpus Juris cited In Chand- 
ler v. IPrice, 15 So.2d 462, 463, 244 
Ala, 667. 

Ariz. White v. Hamilton, 299 P. 124, 

38 Ariz. 256. 

Cal. Paulin v. Paulin, 102 P.2d 809, 

39 Cal. App. 2 d 180. 

Ga. Westberry v. Reddish, 172 S.B. 
10, 178 Ga. 116 Davis v. Mowers, 
114 S.B. 200, 154 Ga. 260. 

111. -Continental 111. Nat Bank & 
Trust Co. of "Chicago v. Sever, 65 
N.E.2d 385, 393 111. 81. 

Ind. Earl Park -State Bank v. Low- 
mon, 161 N.B. 675, 92 Ind.App. 25 
Chicago, T. H. & S. B. Ry. Co. 
v. Collins/ 142 N.B. 634, 82 Ind. 
App. 41, modified on other grounds 
143 N.E. 712, 82 Ind.App. 41. 

&y. Cawood v. Cawood's Adm'x, 
147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201 City 
of Owingsville v. Ulery, 86 S.W. 
2d 706, 260 Ky. 792 Ratliff v. Sin- 
berg, 79 S.W.2d 717, 258 Ky. 203 
Corpus Jails cited la Barnett 
v. Robinson, 79 S.W.2d 699, 700, 
258 Ky. 225 McGill v. Dunaway, 
71 S.W.2d 4-35, 254 Ky. 234 Wak- 
enva Coal Co. v. Johnson, 28 S.W. 
2d 737, 234 Ky. 558. 

Mass. Coughlin v. Coughlin, 45 N. 
B.2d '388, 312 Mass. 452 Geffien v. 
Paletz, 43 N.B.2d 133, 312 Mass. 
48. 

Miss. Holmes v. Ford, 176 So. 524, 
179 Miss. 673 Newell Contracting 
Co. v. Flynt, 161 So. 298, 172 Miss. 
719, motion overruled 161 So. 743, 
172 Miss. 719. 

Mo. Grafeman Dairy Co. v. North- 
western Bank, 288 'S.W. 359, 315 
Mo. 849 McCaskey v. Duffley, 78 
S.W.2d 141, 229 MoApp. 289, trans- 
ferred; see 73 S.W.2d 188, 1335 Mo. 
38-3 Texas Empire (Pipe Line Co. 
v. Stewart, App., 35 S.W.2d 627, 
reversed on other grounds 55 S. 
W.2d 283, 331 Mo. 525 Lewis v. 
Scholl, App w 244 S.W. 90. 

Mont Alley v. Peeso, 290 P. ^238, 

108 



88 Mont 1 Welch v. All Persons, 
Etc., 254 P. 179, 78 Mont 370. 

Neb. Fidelity Finance Co. v. West- 
fall, 254 N.W. 710, 127 Neb. 56 
Domann v. Domann, 208 N.W. 669, 
114 Neb. 563. 

0kl. Corpus Juris cited in. Okla- 
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d 
531, 533, 179 Okl. 309. 

Pa. Bowman v. Gum, Inc., 184 A. 
258, 321 (Pa. 516. 

Tenn. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Iris. Co. 
of New York v. Jackson, 181 S. 
W.2d 625, 181 Tenn. 453 Phifer v. 
Mutual Ben. Health & Accident 
AssM, 148 S.W.2d 17, 24 Tenn.App. 
600. 

Tex. Wilke v. Finn, Com. App., 39 
S.W.2d 836 Nalle v. Harrell, 12 
S.W.2d 550, 118 Tex. 149 Queen 
Ins. Co. v. Galveston, H. & S. A. 
Ry. Co., Com. App., 296 -S.W. 484, 
reheard B.W.2d 419JPhelps v. 
Connellee, Com.App,., 285 S.W. 1047 
Johnson Aircrafts v. Wilborn, 
Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 426-JClty of 
Beaumont v. Calder Place Corpo- 
ration, 180 S.W.2d 189, reversed on 
other grounds 183 S.W.2d 713, 143 
Tex. 244 -Doughty v. DeFee, Civ. 
App., 152 SW.2d 404, error refused 
Rudolph v. Smith, Civ.App., 148 
S.W.2d 225 Butler v. Price, Civ. 
App., 138 S.W.2d 301 De Walt v. 
Universal Film Exchanges, Civ. 
App., 132 S.W.2d 421, error dis- 
missed, judgment correct Rob- 
bins v. Robtoins, Civ.App., 125 S.W. 
2d 666 Fort Worth & Denver City 
Ry. Co. v. Reid, Civ.App., 115 S.W. 
2d 1156 City of Floydada v t Gil- 
liam, Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d 761 
Jones-O'Brien, Inc., v. Lloyd, Civ. 
App., 106 'S.W.2d 1069, error dis- 
missed Hartford Accident & In- 
demnity Co. v. Moore, Civ.App., 
102 S.W.2d 441, error refused 
Houston Gas & Fuel Co. v. Sprad- 
lin, Clv.App., 55 S*.W.2d 1086 
American Surety Co. of New Totfc 
v. Alamo Iron Works, Civ. App., 29 
S.W.2d 493, reversed on other 
grounds, Com. App., 36 S.W.2d 714 
House v. Rogers. Civ.App., 23 



49 C.J.S, 



JUDGMENTS 



48 



pleaded will not support the judgment, 98 and this is 
true, even though such facts are found by verdict 
or finding.^ An affirmative defense not pleaded is 



dence adduced, 2 in connection with facts admitted 
by the parties in the pleadings or otherwise, 8 and 
facts pleaded but not proved or admitted on the 



unavailable to support the judgment 1 * * < AH - . , . 

** ju-ugmcuu ^^ ^ not support a judgment, 4 although in this 

A judgment must also be sustained by the evi- connection allegations not necessary to the state- 



SW.2d 414, affirmed, Com.App., 
Rogers v. House, 39 S.W.2d 1111 
Bray v. Bray, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 
525 Bitter v. Bexar pounty, Civ. 
App., 266 S.W. 224, reversed on 
other grounds. Com.App., 11 S.W. 
2d 163 Stevenson v. Baisrow, Civ. 
App., 265 S.W. 602 Metting v. 
Metting, Civ.App., 261 S.W. 151. 
modified on other grounds 262 S. 
W. 188 Scott v. Lott, Civ.App., 
247 S.W. 685 Scott v. State, 102 
S.W.2d 434, 132 Tex.Cr. 79. 

Utah. Jeffries v. Third Judicial 
Dist. Court of Salt Lake County, 
63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah 525 Stevens 
& Wallis v. Golden OPorphyry 
Mines Co., 18 P.2d 90S, 81 Utah 
414 People's Bonded Trustee v. 
Wright, 272 P. 200, 72 Utah 587. 

Vt. Ackerman v. Carpenter, 59 A.2d 
922, 113 Vt 77. 

W.Va. George v. Male, 153 S.E. 507, 
109 W.Va. 222. 

Wyo. Corpus Juris cited in Urbach 
v. Urbach, 7-3 F.2d 958, 962, 52 
Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889. 

13 C.J. p 798 note 6519 C.J. p 
1209 note 20, p 1240 note 19 
24 C.J. p 884 note 4426 C.J. p 
570 note 2333 C.J. p 144 note 83, 
p 1139 note 52, p 1141 note 53, 
p 1156 note 5842 C.J. p 142 note 
4847 C.J. p 430 note 63, p 1009 
note 8751 (XJ. p 360 note 70. 

"Unwarranted conclusion of law 

A judgment cannot be based on a 
pleaded conclusion of law not war- 
ranted by the facts pleaded. Hurst 
v. Crawford, Tex.Civ,App., 216 S.W. 
284. 

Elimination of aspect of bill 

After complainant has been forced 
by demurrer to eliminate aspect of 
bill, he cannot be required to accept 
decree under that aspect. Kelly v. 
Carmichael, 129 So. 81, 221 Ala. 371. 

When, rule inapplicable 

"The rule that Judgment must be 
in accordance with the allegations 
contained in the pleadings does not 
apply when the evidence, though 
admitted to prove these allegations, 
shows beyond dispute that a party 
is responsible for a wrong or has a 
right which is not alleged, and 
that 'further opportunity to defend 
would be futile and a source only 
of delay and possible injustice." 
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S. 
v. Kevitt, 54 N.YJ3.2d 6413, $50. 
Order void on its face, 

It has been held that an order 
is not void on its face merely be- 
cause it is not in accordance with 
the petition on which it is based. 



Mueller v. Elba Oil Co., 130 P.2d 
961, 21 Cal.2d 188. 

9& Conn. De Lucia v. Valente, 75 
A. 150, $3 Conn. 107. 

Fla. Vance v. Bliss Properties, 149 
So. 870, 109 Fla. 388. 

ia Walsh v. Walsh, 24 N.B.2d 341, 
372 111. 254 Rolinitfs v. Rolinitis, 
167 N.B. 68, 335 111. 260. 

Mo. Massey-Harris Harvester Co. 
v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kan- 
sas City, 48 S.W.2d 158, 226 Mo. 
App. 916. 

Tenn. Furst & Furst v. Freels, 9 
Tenn.App. 423 HarreU v. Alabama 
Great Southern R., 5 Tenn.App. 
471. 

Tex. Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d 
130, 140 Tex 80 Liner v. U. S. 
Torpedo Co., Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 
552, reheard 18 S.W.2d 519 Dalton 
v. Davis, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 571 
Austin Bros. v. Patton, Com. 
App., 294 S.W. 537 Murphy v. 
Bain, Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 598 
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. 
Jenkins, Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 563 
American Surety Co. of New 
York v. Alamo Iron Works, Civ. 
App., 29 &W.2d 493, reversed on 
other grounds, Com. App., 36 S.W. 
2d 714 Baptist Missionary and 
Educational Convention of State 
of Texas v. Knox, Civ.App., 23 
S.W.2d 781 Globe Laundry v. Mc- 
Lean, Civ.App., 19 .W.2d 94 
National Rys. of Mexico v. Escon- 
trias, Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 75 
Brewton v. Butler, Civ. App., 12 
S.W.2d 228 San Antonio Machine 
& Supply Co. v. Allen, Civ.App., 
268 S.W. 532 Schaff v. Perdue, 
Civ.App., 254 S.W. 151 Griffith v. 
Gohlman, Lester & Co., Civ.App., 
25-3 S.W. 591 Flemtog-Stitzer 
Road Bldg. Co. v. Boyett, Civ.App., 
253 S.W. 561. 

W.Va. Bringardner v. Rollins, 185 
S.E. 665, 102 W.Va. 584. 

33 C.J. p 1141 note 54. 

99. Conn. Farnham v. Schreiber, 
149 A. 393, 111 Conn. 38. 

N.C. Simms v. (Sampson, 20 SJ3.2d 
554, 221 N.C. 379. 

Tex. Butler v. Price, Clv^App., 138 
S.W.2d 301 National Life & Ac- 
cident Ins. Co. v. Casas, Civ.App., 
36 S.W.2d 523 Dickson v. Kilgore 
State Bank, CivJVpp., 244 S.W. 892, 
reversed on other grounds, Com. 
App., 257 S.W. 867. 

133 C.J. p 1141 note 55. 

Mass. Nashua River Paper Co. 
v. Lindsay, 136 N.E. 358, 242 Mass. 
206. 
33 C.J. p 1144 note 75. 

109 



"When reoonventloiL&l demand unnec- 
essary 

Where a court is authorized to 
grant the relief prayed for either 
absolutely or on a condition, the 
granting of the relief only on con- 
dition is a mere refusal to grant 
plaintiff the full measure of relief 
prayed for, and no reconventional 
demand on the part of defendant is 
needed to authorize such judgment. 
Francez v. Francez, 94 So. 203, 
152 La. 666. 

2. Colo. -Minchew v. West, 241 P. 
541, 78 Colo. 254. 

111. Brock v. Pomeroy, 27 NJE.2d 
56, 305 ULApp. 127 Pley v. Lav- 
ette, 167 IlXApp. 494. 
La. Thompson v. State Assur. Co., 
Limited, of Liverpool, England, 
107 So. 489, 160 La. 683. 
N.T. Claris v. Richards, 183 NJBL 
904, 260 N.Y. 419 Antonacchio V. 
Consolidated Foreign Exchange 
Corporation, 197 N.T.-S. 150, 203 
App.Div. 621. 

S.C. Blease v. Charleston & W. C. 
Ry. Co., 144 S.E. 233, 146 S.C. 496. 
Tex. City of Beaumont v. Calder 
Place Corporation. Civ.App., 180 
SW.2d 189, reversed on other 
grounds 183 S.W.2d 713, 143 Tex. 
244 Riggle v. Automobile Finance 
Co., Civ.App., 276 S.W. 439 Ben- 
son v. Adams, Civ.App., 274 S.W. 
210, reversed on other grounds, 
Cozn.App., 285 S.W. 818 R. B. 
George Machinery Co. v. Spear- 
man, Civ.App., 273 S.W. 640. 
Wyo. Finance Corporation of Wyo- 
ming v. Commercial Credit Co., 283 
P. 1100, 41 Wyo. 198. 
13 C.J. p 798 note 6519 C.J. p 1210 
note 21, p 1240 note 2024 C.J. p 
885 note 4526 C.J. p 570 note 24 
33 C.J. p 1141 note 5747 C.J. 
p 430 note 64. 
Terms of unambiguous contract 

Judgment on an unambiguous 
written contract should be rendered 
according to its terms, although evi- 
dence is admitted to explain, add to, 
and vary its meaning. Cease v. De 
Hek, 253 P. 232, 122 Kan. 699. 

3. N.T. J. D. L. Corporation v. 
Bruckman, 11 N.T.S.2d 7'41, in 
Misc. 3. 

Tex. Baker v. Rose, CivJV.pp., 179 
S.W.2d 339, modified on other 
grounds 183 &W.2d 438, 143 Tex. 
438. 

33 C.J. p 1142 note 58. . 

4. y< Wunderlich v. Ecott, 46 S. 
W.2d -753, 242 Ely. 481. 

La. Pitre v. Guidry, Ajpp., 147 So, 
767. 



48 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



ment of a cause of action and constituting mere 
surplusage need not be proved, it being sufficient 
that the judgment is supported by proof of the 
essential allegations.* In other words, the judg- 
ment must conform to, and be supported by, both 
the pleadings and the proofs, 6 and be in accordance 
with the theory of the action on which the plead- 
ings are framed and the case was tried. 7 This rule 
is of universal application, and whether the ac- 



tion or suit is at law, in equity, or under the code, 
the judgment must be secundum allegata et proba- 
ta. 8 Where the facts pleaded and proved by plain- 
tiff constitute a cause of action, a judgment may be 
rendered in his favor, 9 notwithstanding some of the 
allegations made by him are not found to be true. 10 

A judgment inconsistent with admitted or con- 
clusively established facts is erroneous; 11 a valid 



NVT. Klepper v. Seymour House j 

Corporation of Ogdensburg, 209 N. 

T.S. 67, 212 App.Div. 277. 
Tex. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 

v. Harrington, Com.App., 290 S. 

W. 726-r Sproles v. Rosen, Civ. 

App., 47 S.W.2d Ml, affirmed 84 S. 

W.2d 1001, 126 Tex 51. 
33 C.J. p 1142 note 59. 
Verified account 

In an action based on an itemized 
account the correctness of which is 
duly verified, and under a statute 
providing that to the absence of a 
verified denial the account should be 
taken as true, it *s not necessary 
to the validity of a judgment oa 
the account, where the required de- 
nial has not been made, that other 
evidence be introduced. Cusack v. 
McMasters, 279 P. 329, 137 Okl. 278. 

5. Mo. Campbell v. Missouri Pac. 
B. Co., 25 S.W. 936. 121 Mo. 340, 
42 Am.S.R. 530, 25 L.R.A. 175. 

33 C.J. p 11*44 note 74. 

e. U.S. Webster Bisenlohr, Inc., v. 
Kalodner, C.C.A.Pa., 145 P.2d 316, 
certiorari denied Kalodner v. Web- 
ster Bisenlohr, Inc., 65 S.Ct. 1404, 
325 U.-S. 867, 89 L.Ed. 1986 Dry- 
brough v Ware, C.C.A,Ky., Ill F. 
2d 548. 

Cal. Pacific Mortg. Guaranty Co. v. 
Rosoff, 67 P.2d 110, 20 Cal.App.2d 
383. 

Conn. Tress v. Pivorotto, 133 A. 85, 
104 Conn. -389. 

Fla. Corpus JtuAs quoted in Edgar 
v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109, 97 Fla. 
679, followed in Wright v. Tatari- 
an, 181 "So. 133, 100 Fla. 1366. 

Ga. Griffeth v. Haygood, 161 S.B. 
831, 174 Ga. 22. 

m._Wood v. Wood, 64 N.E.2d 385, 
327 111. App. 557 Kohler v. Kohler, 
61 N.B.2d 687, 326 IlLApp. 105 
First Trust Joint Stock Land 
Bank of Chicago v. Cutler, 12 N.E. 
2d 705, 293 Ill.App. 354. 

Iowa. Bennett v. Oreenwalt, 286 N. 
W. 122, 226 Iowa 1113. 

Ky. Wunderlich v. Scott, 46 S.W.2d 
753, 242 Ky. 481 Phelps v. Phelps, 
24 S.W.2d 584, 232 Ky. 685 Ad- 
Idas v. Pikeville Supplying & 
Planing Mill Co., 295 S.W. 440, 220 
Ky. 476 Lassiter v. Farris, 259 S, 
W. 696, 202 Ky. 330. 

3iss. Kennington-Saenger Theatres 
*. State ex reL Disk Atty., 18 So. 



2d 433, 196 Miss. 841. 153 A.L.R. 
883. 

Mo. Sinclair Refining Co. v. W]yatt, 
149 'S.W.2d -358, 347 Mo. 862 Frie- 
del v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d 9, 829 Mo. 
22. 

Mont. tSecurity State Bank of 
Havre v. Mariette, 223 P. 114, 69 
Mont. 536. 
Neb. Coleman v. Beck, 5 N.W.2d 

104, 142 Neb. 13. 

N.J. Gunther v. Morey Larue Laun- 
dry Co., 29 A.2d 713, 129 N.J Law 
345, affirmed 33 A.2d 893, 130 N.J. 
Law 557 Sivak v. City of New 
Brunswick, A.2d 566, 122 N.J. 
Law 197. 

N.T. Lifton v. Title Guarantee & 
Trust Co., 31 N.T.S.2d 94, 26-3 App. 
Div. 3 Electric Equipment Cor- 
poration v. Delco Appliance Corpo- 
ration, 297 N.T.S. 498, 252 App.Div. 
1 Dobbins v. Pratt Chuck Co., 206 
N.Y.S. 5, 210 App.Div. 278, revers- 
ed on other grounds 151 N.E. 1-46, 
242 N.T. 106 People v. Roney, 230 
N.T.S. 583, 132 Misc. 746. 
Pa. In re Miller, Com.Pl., 32 Del. 

Co. 566. 

S.C. Jones v. Blbert, 34 'S.E.2d 796, 
206 S.C. 508 Parker Peanut Co. 
v. Felder, 34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C. 
3 Corpus Juris quoted in Little 
v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174, 175, 180 S. 
C. 149. 

Tenn. Dixie Ohio Exp. Co. v. But- 
ler, 166 S.W.2d 614, 179 Tenn. 358. 
Tex. -Page v. Key, Civ.App., 175 S. 
W.2d 443, error refused Street v, 
Cunningham, Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d 
541-r-Day v. Grayson County -State 
Bank, Civ.App., ISS S.W.2d 599 
Barrett v. Commercial Standard 
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d -315 
Southern Underwriters v. Blair, 
Oiv.App., 144 S.W.2d 641 Guthrie 
v. Gossett, Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 
410 American Nat Ins. Co. v. 
Sutton, Civ.Aipp., 130 S.W.2d 441 
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Ow- 
ings, Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 67 
Railroad Commission of Texas v. 
Royal Petroleum Corporation, Civ. 
App., 93 S.W.2d 761, error dismiss- 
ed Penrod v. Von Wolff, Civ.App., 
90 S.W.2d 859 Barnhart Mercan- 
tile Co. v. Bengel, Civ.App., 77 
S.W.2d 295 Perkins v. Campbell, 
Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 567 Farm & 
Home Savings & Loan Ass'n of 
Missouri v. Muhl, Civ.App., 37 S 
W.2d 316, error refused Sibley v, 

no 



Perkins Bros. Dry Goods Co., Civ. 
App., 12 S.W.2d 601 Hall v. Brad- 
ley, Civ.App., 282 S.W. 874 Grif- 
fith v. Gohlman, Lester & Co., Civ. 
App., 253 <S.W. 591. 
Vt. In re Prouty's Estate, 165 A. 

566, 105 Vt 66. 

Va. Richmond Engineering & Mfg. 
Corporation v. Loth, 115 S.E. 774, 
135 Va. 110. 

1 C.J. p 1009 note 733 C.J. t> 1142 
note 60 42 C.J. p 1287 note 14 
51 C.J. p 269 note 25. 
Belief not dependent on arguments 
"It is the pleadings and the de- 
veloped facts within the pleadings 
that courts are obliged to follow and 
to which the parties and counsel 
must be held; not arguments." 
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. 
Pitts, 179 So. 363, 365, 181 Miss. 344. 

7. Fla. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109, 
97 Fla. 679, followed in Wright v. 
Tatarian, 131 So. r33, 100 Fla. 
1366. 

Iowa. Bennett v. Green wait, 286 N. 

W. 722, 226 Iowa 1113. 
S.C. Corpus Juris quoted in Little 

v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174, 175, 180 

S.C. 149. 
33 C.J. p 1143 -note 61. 

8. Fla. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109, 
97 Fla. 679, followed in Wright v. 
Tatarian, 131 So. 133, 100 Fla. 
1366. 

33 C.J. p 1143 note 62. 

9. Miss. Southeastern Exp. Co. v. 
Namie, 181 So. 515, 182 Miss. 447. 

Wash. Exeter Co. v. Holland Corpo- 
ration, 23 P.2d 864, 172 Wash. 323. 
33 C.J. p 1143 note 67. 

In courts where written pleadings 
are not required, plaintiff is entitled 
to any appropriate relief on facts 
established, unless on the trial he 
has adopted and insisted on a con- 
trary theory of the case. Troxler 
v. Bevlll, 3 S.E.2d 8, 215 N.C. 640. 

10. Cal. Herman v. Glasscock, 155 
P.2d 912, 38 Cal. App. 2 d 98. 

11. Cal. California Stearns Co. v* 
Treadwell, 256 P. 594, 83 CaLApp. 
69. 

Kan. Wright v. Jenks, 261 P. 840, 

124 Kan. 604. 
Ky. Quaack v. Kentucky Title Trust 

Co., 106 S.W.2d 589, 268 Ky. 498. 
N.Y. Weiss v. McKinner, 59 N.Y.S.2d 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



49 



judgment, inconsistent with his own allegations and 
admissions, cannot be rendered for a party. 1 * If 
defendant admits liability for a particular sum, 
judgment should be rendered against him for at 
least such sum, and a judgment of nonsuit, dis- 
missal, or the like is erroneous. 13 A judgment for 
a defendant who fails to answer a complaint stat- 
ing a cause of action is erroneous, because the de- 
fault admits the case alleged. 1 * A judgment is void 
for inconsistency where it grants relief both to 
plaintiff and to defendant on inconsistent grounds. 15 

In determining whether or not the pleadings sup. 
port the judgment, they must be taken as a whole, 16 
and construed so as to support the judgment, if 
capable of such a construction. 1 ? Substantial ac- 
cordance is sufficient; 18 and to upset a judgment 
for variance between it and the pleadings in a con- 
tested case, it has been held that there must be an 
entire abandonment of the very substance of the 
dispute to which defendant was summoned, and the 
substitution of another which he could not have 
anticipated, and which he had no opportunity to 
meet 19 If defendant merely files an answer and 



defaults thereafter, a closer registry between plead- 
ing and judgment is exacted than after a contested 
trial. 2 The presumption is that the relief granted 
is authorized by the pleadings, and the burden is on 
him who attacks the judgment to show that it was 
not. 21 



49. Limitation to Relief Sought by 

Pleadings 

a. In general 

b. Affirmative relief to defendant 

a. In General 

As a general rule the relief awarded should conform 
to that sought by the pleadings.; but this rule does not 
always apply, particularly where there is a prayer for 
general relief or where the statutes have broadened the 
scope of permissible relief, and In many cases the court 
has power to grant any relief within the issues formed 
by the pleadings and justified by the evidence, regard- 
less of the specific relief demanded. 

Ordinarily, and in the absence of a statute to the 
contrary, the relief to be awarded by a judgment 
should be consistent with, and limited to, that sought 



659 Levlne v. Weiss, 16 N.Y.S.2d 

1003. 
Tex. Dashiel v. Lott, ConouApp., 243 

S.W. 1072, rehearing: denied 246 

S.W. xvi Great Southern Life 

Ins. Co. v. Dorough, Civ.App., 100 

S.W.2d 772. 
33 C.J. p 1143 note 63. 
Legal effect of admitted facts 

Where all the material foots are 
established by admissions in the 
pleadings, the Judgment must be In 
accordance with the legal effect of 
such facts regardless of the testi- 
mony on other issues, unless by ac- 
tual or implied consent the parties 
have tried the case on other sub- 
stituted issues. Reiff v. Mullholland, 
62 N.E. 124, 65 Ohio St. 17883 C. 
J. p 1143 note $5. 
Indebtedness of plaintiff 

(1) In action by borrowers 
against lender of money, where un- 
controverted proof showed that 
plaintiffs were indebted to defend- 
ants in excess of their claim, enter- 
ing judgment for plaintiff was error. 
Brecht v. Bankers' Sec. Co., 133 
S.E. 79, 101 W.Va. 533. 

(2) In action to have chattel mort- 
gage declared void, court properly 
gave defendant judgment for amount 
of debt which plaintiff admitted. 
Wilson v. Standard Fertilizer Co., 
166 S.E. 76, 203 N.C. 359. 

12. Mo. Drecksbage v. Dreckshage, 
176 -S.W.2d 7, 352 Mo. 78. 

33 C:J. p 1156 note 59. 

13. U.S. Southern Pac, Co. v. Van 
Hoosear, C.OA.Cal., 72 F.2d 908. 



Ky. Olark v. Mason, 95 S.W.2d 292, 

264 Ky. 683. 
N.C. Penn v. King, 162 S.B. 376, 202 

N.C. 174. 
Tex Illinois Bankers' Life Ass'n 

v. Floyd, Com. App., 222 S.W. 967. 
33 C.J. p 1143 note 63 [a], [b]. 

14. Tex. Miller v. Nichols, Civ. 
App., 258 S.W. 855. 

3-3 C.J. p 1143 note $4. 

15. Mo. King v. Brockschmidt, 3 
Mo.App. 571. 

33 C.J. p 1168 note 29. 

16. Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. 
Busha, 66 P.2d 64, 67, 179 Okl. 
505. 

S.C. Little v. Rivers, 185 SJ3J. 174, 

180 S.C. 149. 
Tex. Corpus Juris cited in Cavers 

v. Sioux Oil & Refining Co., Com. 

App., 49 S.W.2d 862, 868. 
Utah. La Bee v. Smith, 229 P. 88, 64 

Utah 242. ' 
33 CJ. p 1144 note 77. 
Pleadings of lota parties 

In determining the relief which 
may be accorded, it is proper to 
take into consideration the plead- 
ings of both parties. Buchanan v. 
Davis, Tex.Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 192 
Cavers v. Sioux Oil & Refining Co., 
Tex.Com.App., 49 S.W.2d 862 New 
Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Withrow, 
TexCiv.App., 143 S.W.2d 971 Orms- 
by v. Ratcliff, Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W. 
2d 504, affirmed Ormsby v. Ratcliffe, 
Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 100533 C.J, P 
1168 note 28 [a] (2). 

Ill 



Adverse interest* between code, 
fendants may be passed on, and a 
decree rendered between them 
grounded on the pleadings and proof 
between plaintiff and defendants and 
founded on and connected with the 
subject matter in litigation between 
plaintiff and one or more of defend- 
ants, even though no cross pleadings 
be filed, especially where the rights 
as between plaintiff and one of the 
defendants cannot be adjudicated 
without determining rights as be- 
tween codefendants, Gillam v. Co- 
line Oil Co., 277 P. 639, 136 OkL 
257. 

17. Okl. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. 
Busha, 66 P.2d 64, 67, 179 OkL 
505. 

S.C. Little v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 17-4, 

180 S.C. 149. 
33 C.J. p 1144 note 78. 

18. S.C. Little v. Rivers, supra. 
33 C.J. p 1144 note 79. 

19. U.S. Armand Co. v. Federal 
Trade Commission, C.CJL, 84 P.2d 
97-3, certiorari denied 56 S.Ct 309, 
296 U.-S. 650, 80 L.Ed. 463, certio- 
rari denied 57 S.Ct 189, 299 U.S. 
597, 81 L.Ed; 440, rehearing denied 
57 S.Ct 234, 299 U.S. 623, 81 L.Ed. 
459. 

20. U.S. Armand Co. v. Federal 
Trade Commission, supra, ' 

21. Iowa. American Emigrant Co. 
v. Fuller, 50 N.W. 48, 83 Iowa 599. 

33 C.J. p 1144 note 80. 



49 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



by the pleadings 22 or incidental thereto. 23 Where 
plaintiff has asked only for specific relief, or relief 
as to a specific subject matter, usually no more ex- 
tensive or different relief may be accorded to him. 24 
However, particularly under statutes or codes in 
effect so providing, the demand or prayer for relief 
does not always or necessarily determine or limit 



the relief which may be granted, 25 and in many cas- 
es the rule is stated more broadly to the effect that 
any relief fairly within the issues formed by the 
pleadings and justified by the evidence may be giv- 
en, regardless of the specific relief asked or the 
form of the action. 26 Accordingly it has been held 
that, notwithstanding a pleading asks for the wrong 



22, tr.S. iSylvan Beach v. Koch, C. 
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852. 

Ariz. Wall v. Superior Court of Ya- 
vapai Comity. 89 P.2d 624, 63 Ariz. 
344. 

Gad. Lewis V. Kohls, App.. 1-60 P. 
2d 199. 

Conn. Shaw T. Sj>elk, 14T A. 675, 
110 Conn. 208. 

Fla. G-ralynn Laundry T. Virginia 
Bond & Mortgage Corporation, 163 
So. 706, 121 Fla. 812. 

Ga. Burton v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 172 S.E. 41, 177. Ga. 899, 
transferred, see 173 S.E. 922, 48 
GauApp. 828. 

Idaho. Mason v. Pelkes, 59 P.2d 
1087, 57 Idaho 10, certiorarl denied 
Pelkes T. Mason, 67 S.Ct. 319, $99 
U.S. 615, 81 LJEd. 4&3 Angel v. 
Mellea, 285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750. 

I1L (Barker T. Gray, 148 N.E. 325, 
317 111. 468 Wood v. Wood, 64 
N.E.2d -385, 327 IlLApp. 57. 

Iowa. Federal Land Bank of Omaha 
v. Jefferson, 295 K.W. 855, 229 
Iowa 1054, 1*32 A.L.R. 1282 In re 
Collicott's Estate, 283 N.W. 869, 
226 Iowa 106. 

Ky. Jones v. York, 185 S.W.2d 404, 
299 Ky. 30, 

La. Mente & Co. v. Roane Sugars, 
6 So.2d 731, 199 La. 636 Peters v. 
Norris, 185 So. 481, 191 La. 436 
Le Blanc v. Cristlna, 140 So. 149, 
19 La.App. 397. 

Miss. Kennlngton-Saenger Theatres 
v. State ex rel. District Attorney, 
18 So.2d 488, 196 Miss. 841 r 153 A. 
L.R. 883. 

Mo. Brown v. Wilson, 1S5 6.W.24 
176, 348 Mo. 658 -Hecker v. Bleish, 
3 S.W.2d 1008, 319 Mo. 149. 

N.M. Van Sickle v. Keck, 81 P.2d 
707, 42 N.M. 450. 

Pa. Eddy v. Borough of Ashley, 125 
A. 308, 281 Pa. 4. 

Tex. Grain v. Adams, dv.App., 120 
S.W.2d 290 Hake v. Dilworth, 
Civ.App., 96 S:W.2d 121, error dis- 
missed Lokey T. Elliott. Civ.App,, 
88 S.W.2d 126 Elgin v. Banks, 
Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 149 Faison T. 
Faison, Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 828, 
error dismissed Community Nat- 
ural <3a C*. T. Northern Texas 
Utilities Co., Civ.App., 13 -S.W.2d 
194, error dismissed Smith v. 
Miller, Civ.App., 300 fi.W. 95"3 
Creager T. Beamer Syndicate, Civ. 
App., 274 S.W. 323. 

Utah. Voyles v. Straka, 292 P. 913, 
77 Utah 171. 

Wis.In re Kehl's Estate, 254 N.W. 
639, 215 Wis> 353* 



Wyo. Corpus Juris cited in Urbach 

v. Urbach, 73 P.2d 953. 963, 62 

Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889. 
33 C.J. p 1144 note 8242 C.J. P 

142 note B3 47 C.J. P 430 note 69 

51 C.J. p 270 note 33. 
Conformity of default Judgment to 

pleadings and proof see infra 

214. 
Relief m equity as limited by prayer 

for relief' see Equity 607. 

"It may be that in some cases a 
court is warranted in decreeing to 
litigants .rights not specifically ask- 
ed for in the prayer, but we know 
of no rule which requires a trial 
court to render a judgment in favor 
of a litigant who does not plainly 
set out in some portion of his plead- 
ing the relief which he desires and 
to which he deems himself entitled 
under the law.** City of Floydada 
v. Gilltem, Tex.Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d 
761, 763. 

23. Ark. Bentonville v. Browne, 
158 S.W. 161, 108 Ark. 306. 

33 C.J. p 1145 note 83. 

Incidental relief in foreclosure suit 

(1) It is within the power of the 
court in a foreclosure suit to give 
relief as to incidental matters not 
specified in the prayer, where the 
mortgage stipulates for such relief. 
First Nat. Bank v. Heachem, Tenn. 
Ch., 36 S.W. 72442 C.J. p 143 note 54. 

(2) Such relief may also be given 
where complainant was excusably 
ignorant as to his right thereto. 
Clark v. Mackin, 95 N.Y. 3-4642 C 
J. p 143 note 55. 

24. La. New Orleans Silica Brick 
Co. v. John Thatcher & Son, 107 
So. 236, 160 La. 392. 

Tex, Railroad Commission of Texas 
v. Royal Petroleum Corporation, 
Civ.App., 93 S.W,2d 761, error dis- 
missed-^Smith v. Jaggers, Civ. 
App., 16 S.W.2d 969, error dis- 
missed. 

33 C.J. p 1148 note 2. 

25. Ark. Morgan v. Scott-Mayer 
Commission Co., 48 S.W.2d 838, 
185 Ark. 637. 

Cal. Holmes v. Anderson, 265 .0?. 
1010, 90 CaLApp. 276. 

Colo. Snell v. Public Utilities Com- 
mission, 114 P.2d 563, 108 Colo. 162 
>Speyer v. School Dist. No. 1, 
City and County of Denver, 261 P. 
859, 82 Colo. 534 Pomponio v. 
Larsen, 251 P. 534, 80 Colo. 318. 

Ga. Anderson v. Fulton County 
Home Builders, 92 S.E. 934, 147 
Ga, 104, 

112 



Idaho. Schlieff v. Bistline, 15 P.2d 
726, 52 Idaho 353. 

Ill.-^Pure Oil Co. v. -Byrnes, 57 N.E. 
2d 356, 388 111. 26 Swofford v. 
Swofford, 63 N.B.2d 615, 527 111. 
App. 25. 

Ind. Rooker v. Leary, 149 N.B. 358, 
84 Ind. App. 77 Montgomery v. 
Montgomery, 140 N.B. 917, 81 Ind. 
App. 1. 

Mo. Homa-n v. Employers Reinsur- 
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.2d 289, 
345 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163 Ben- 
trup v. Johnson, 14 S.W.2d 537, 223 
Mo.App. 299. 

Mont. Malvaney v. Yager, 64 P.2d 
135, 101 Mont. 331. 

N.Y. In re Feuer Transp., 65 N.B. 
2d 178, 295 N.Y. 87, reargument 
denied Feuer Transp. v. Local Un- 
ion No. 445 of International Broth- 
erhood of Teamsters, 66 N.E.2d 
590, 295 N.Y. 821, motion denied 
66 N.B.2d 593, 295 N.Y. 825 
Brown Packing Co. v. Lewis, 58 
N.Y.S.2d 443, 185 Misc. 445. 

Okl. Reynolds v. Wall, 72 P.2d 505, 
181 Okl. 110, 113 A.L.R. 417 
Owens v. OPurdy, 217' P. 425, 90 
Okl. 256. 

Tenn. Central Bank & Trust Co. v. 
Conn. 264 S.W. 641, 150 Tenn. 375. 

Utah. Bolognese v. Anderson, 90 
P.2d 275, 97 Utah 136 Jeffries v. 
Third Judicial Dist. Court of Salt 
Lake County, 63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah 
525. 

Prayer not determinative of right to 

recover 
The right to recover depends, not 

on the prayer, but on the scope of 

the pleadings, and the issues made, 

or which might have been made, 

under them. Paulsen v. Western 

Electric Co., 171 P. 38. 67 Okl. 809. 

General law as to framing of judg- 
ment 
Where the general law prescribes 

the manner of framing a judgment 

and carrying it into execution, the 

court ' may follow that manner, 

whether or not expressly prayed for. 

Ex parte Weiler, 289 P. 645, 106 

Cal.App. 485. 

20. Ark. Albersen v. Klanke, 6 6. 
W.2d 292, 177 Ark. 288. 

Cal. O'Melia v. A<3kins, App., 166 P. 
2d 298 Erskine v. Upham, 132 P. 
2d 210, 56 Cal.App.2d 23580^ 
nicksen v. So'nnicksen, 113 OP.2d 
495, 45 Cal.Appv2d 46 Zimmer v. 
Gorehiik, 109 P.2d 34, 42 Cal.App. 
2d 440 Lorraine v. Lorraine, 48 
P.2d 48, 8 Cal.App.2d 687 Masero 



t9 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



49 



elief, or for relief which cannot be granted, the 
;ourt may grant other and appropriate relief. 27 
\. party is not deprived of all right to relief merely 
>ecause he has sought more than he is entitled to, 
ind judgment for less relief than demanded may 
>e given when sustained by the pleadings- and 
>roof. 28 

A judgment which grants relief of a character 
lot sought is not for that reason void ; 29 at most it 



s erroneous. 30 

v. Bessolo, 262 P. 61, 87 CaLApp. 
262. 

3olo. Bncll r. Public Utilities Com- 
mission, 114 P.2d 563, 108 Colo. 
162. 

11. Yakich v. Smietanka, 63 N.E.2d 
718, 392 111. 53. 

Can. Eberhardt Lumber Co. v. I*e- 
cuyer, 110 P.2d 757, 153 Kan. 386 
Shelley v. Sentinel Life Ins. Co., 
69 iP.2d 737, 146 Kan. 227. 

JLo. Merz v. Tower Grove Bank & 
Trust Co,, 130 S;W.2d 611, 344 Mo. 
1150 Jones v. Campbell, App., 189 
S.W.2d 124. 

tfont. Malvaney v. Yager, 5'4 P.2d 
135, 101 Mont. 331 Outlook Farm- 
ers' Elevator Co. v. American 
Surety Co. of New York, 223 P. 
905. 70 Mont. 8. 

*.Y. Hells tern v. Hellstern, 18 N. 
E.2d 296, 279 N.Y. 327 New 
Chester Theatre Corporation v. 
Bischoff, 205 N.Y.S. 641. 210 App. 
Div. 125 Allen v. Mattison, 14 N. 
Y.S.2d 711. 

*.C. Lockman v. Lockman, 16 S.E. 
2d 670, 220 N.C. 95 Dry v. Board 
of Drainage Com'rs of Gabarrus 
County, Drainage Dist No. 6, 11 
S.E.2d 143, 218 N.C. 356 Troacler 
v. Bevill, 3 S.E.2d 8, 215 N.C. 640 
Virginia Trust Co. v. Webb, 173 
S.E. 598, 206 NjC. 247. 

3kl.WTucker v. Porter, 72 R2d 388, 
181 Okl. 30 Harmon v. Hines, 16 
P.2d 94, 160 Okl. 120 Page v. Ok- 
lahoma City, 263 OP. 448, 12J9 Okl. 
28 Rose v. Firat Nat Bank, 219 
P. 715, 93 Okl. 120. 

3.C. Palmetto Compress & Ware- 
house Co. v. Citizens & Southern 
Nat. Bank, 20 S.E.2d 232, 200 S.C. 
20 Youmans v. Youmans, 121 SJB3. 
674, 128 S.C. 31. 

Tex. Honaker v. Guffey Petroleum 
Co., 294 S.W. 259. 

{3 C.J. p 1149 note 5, p 1150 note 7. 

Amendments to prayer 

(1) In a proper case the court will 
illow amendments to be made to 
the prayer in order to justify a 
judgment affording appropriate re- 
lief. Burd v. Downing, 213 P. 287, 
30 Cal.App. 493. 

(2) ( It has also been held, how- 
ever, that an amendment to the 
prayer of the petition is not a pre- 
requisite to such relief. Snehoda v. 

49 C.J.S.-8 



In contested cases, or cases in which an answer 
has been filed the relief which may be granted is 
not limited to that demanded in the complaint or 
specifically prayed for, particularly under statutes 
in effect so providing; 31 the court may grant any 
relief which is consistent with the case made by the 
pleadings and proofs, and embraced within the is- 
sues. 32 The effect of a statute providing that, 
where defendant appears and answers, plaintiff shall 



First Nat Bank in Wichita, 224 P. 
91*4, 115 Kan. 836. 

27. Ariz. -Keystone Copper Min. Co. 
v. Miller, 164 P.2d 603. 

Cal. Bank of America Nat. Trust 
& Savings Ass'n v. Gillett, 97 P.2d 
875, 36 Cal.App.2d 453 Neblett v. 
Neblett, 66 P.2d 969, 13 Cal.App. 
2d 304. 
Colo. Pope v. Parker, 271 P. 1118, 

84 Colo. 535. 

La. Prejean v. East Baton Rouge 
Parish Democratic Executive Com- 
mittee, 19 So.2d 376, 206 La. 658. 
Mo. Rains v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d 

81, 338 Mo. 275. 

N.T. Lonsdale v. Spever, 291 N.Y. 
$. 495, 249 App.Dlv. 133 Seedman 
v. Benenson Realty Co., 60 N.Y.S. 
2d 341, 185 Misc. 769 Brown 
Packing Co. v. Lewis, 58 N.Y.S.2d 
443, 185 Misc. 445. 

Erroneous prayer for eq.uita'ble relief 
If complaint states facts showing 
cause of action at law, court will 
disregard prayer for equitable relief 
and give plaintiff appropriate reme- 
dy in law, Welsh v. Markham, 210 
N.W. 70-6, 191. Wis. 310. 
Compliance with statutory require- 
ments 

Where the allegations of a com- 
plaint under statute are sufficient 
to satisfy the statutory require- 
ments, it is immaterial that the 
prayer for relief is inappropriate. 
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 139 N.Y.-S. 
1095, 78 Misc. 557. 

28. Ind. State ex rel. Mavity v. 
Tyndall, 66 N.R2d 755. 

Ky. Cooper v. McWilliams & Rob- 
inson, 298 S.W. 961, 221 Ky. 320. 

La. Martinez v. Orleans Parish 
School Board, 98 So. 860, 155 La. 
116 Harries v. Courcier, 119 So. 
90S, 16 La.App. 22. 

N.Y. Vickers v. Tickers, 282 N.Y.S. 
422, 156 Misc. 724. 

-Wash. Washington Pulp & Paper 
Corporation v. Robinson, 6 P.2d 
e32, 166 Wash. 210. 

Wyo.~ Corpus Juris quoted in Ur- 
bach v. Urbach, 73 P.2d 953, 962, 
52 Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889. 

33 C.J. p 1145 note 84. 

interest than entire ownership 
Appropriate pleading of entire 

ownership in property sued for will 

authorize recovery of a less interest, 

113 



where warranted by the proof. Gay 
v. Jackman, TexjCom.App., 254 S.W. 
92751 C.J. p 270 note 38 [a], 

29. Cal. Luekey v. Superior Court 
in and for Los Angeles County, 
287 P. 450, 209 Cal. 360. 

Ky, Middleton v. Graves, 17 S.W.24 

741, 229 Ky. 640. 
33 C.J. p 1148 note 2 [b]. 

However, it has also been held 
that a judgment in an action to de- 
termine adverse claims to vacant 
and unoccupied lands, awarding re- 
lief -beyond the scope of the com- 
plaint, is not a mere irregularity,, 
but extrajudicial and void. Hurr v. 
Davis, 193 N.W. 94-3, 155 Minn. 456. 
rehearing denied 194 N.W. 379, 155 
Minn. 456, certiorari denied 44 S.Ct. 
36, 263 U.S. 709, 68 L.Ed. 518, and 
error dismissed 45 S.Ct. 227, 267 U.S. 
572, 69 L.Ed. 794. 
Unsupported portion 

Where the pleadings do not war- 
rant a decree or part of a decree en- 
tered, and the decree or such part 
of it is clearly and unmistakably 
beyond the scope of the pleadings, 
then the decree or such part of it is 
void and not merely erroneous. 
Simmons v. Yoho, 115 S.E. 851, 92 
W.Va. 703. 

30. Ky. (Middleton v. Graves, 17 S, 
W.2d 7-41, 229 Ky. 640. 

31. Cal. Estrin v. Superior Court 
in and for Sacramento County, 96 
iP.2d 340, 14 Cal.Sd 670 Pedro v. 
Scares, 64 P.2d 776, 18 Cal.App.23 
600. 

La. Clesi v. National Life & Acci- 
dent Ins. Co., App., 193 So. 89 7 t 
affirmed 197 So. 413, 195 La. 736.. 

Minn. La Rue Iron Mining Co. v. 
Village of Nashwauk, 222 N.W.. 
527, 176 Minn. 117. 

Tex. Duncan v. Green, Civ.App. t . 
113 S.W.2d 656, error dismissed. 

33 C.J. p 1146 notes 89, 92^5} C.J., 
p 270 note 35. 

32. Cal. Estrin v. (Superior Court, 
in and for Sacramento County, 96; 
P.2d 540, 14 Cal.2d 670 Zumwalt 
v. Hargrave, App., 162 P.2d 957 
Davis v. -Stewart, 127 P.2d 1014,. 
53 CaLApp.2d. 439 York v. Beck.. 
App., 118 P.2d 316 Martin v. Pa- 
cific Southwest Royalties, 106 P. 
2d 44-3, 41 Cal.App.2d 161 Allen 
v. California Mut. Building &- 



49 



JUDGMENTS 



49 O.J.S 



not be confined to the relief demanded is merely to 
relieve plaintiff from any technical objection that 
he has not prayed for the precise relief to which, on 
the trial, he may seem entitled; and the relief to be 
granted must still conform to, and be consistent 
with, the case made by the pleadings and proof. 83 
A demurrer has been held not an answer within the 
meaning of such a statute; 34 but there is also au- 
thority to the contrary. 35 Defendant's election to 
stand on the sufficiency of his answer, after a de- 
murrer thereto has been sustained, is not equiva- 



lent to withdrawal of the answer, with respect to 
whether or not relief may be granted exceeding 
that demanded by the complaint** 

Prayer for general relief. Where a prayer for 
general relief is added to the demand of specific 
relief, the court is not limited to the specific de- 
mand, but may grant, particularly under code prac- 
tice, such other appropriate relief as may be con- 
sistent with the allegations and proofs and neces- 
sary to adjust fully the equities of the case, 37 at 



Loan Ass'n, 104 P.2d 851, 40 Cal. 
App.2d 374 Pedro v. Scares, 64 P. 
2d 776, 18 Cal.App.2d 600 Sam- 
uels v. Singer, 86 P.2d 1098, 1 Cal. 
App.2d 545, amended and rehear- 
ing denied 37 P.2d 1050, 1 Cal.App. 
2d 545 intzel v. Wagner, 6 P.2d 
29*, 119 CaLApp. 335 Murdock v. 
Fisher Finance Corporation, 251 P. 
319, 7-9 CaLApp. 787-^Takovich v. 
Romer, 240 P. 39, 74 CaLApp. 333. 
Idaho. Schlieff v. BIstline, 15 P.2d 

726, 52 Idaho 35*3. 

3STev. Buaas v. Buaas, 147 P.2d 495, 
62 Nev. 232 Keyes v. Nevada Gas 
Co., 38 P.2d 661, 55 Nev. 431. 
N.C. Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.B.2d 

55*. 221 N.C. 79. 

N.D. Jacobson v. Mutual Ben. 
Health & Accident Ass'n, 296 N.W, 
545, 70 N.D. 566. 

Tex. Hubb Diggs Co. v. Fort Worth 
State Bank, 298 8.W. 419, 117 Tex 
107. 
33 C.J. p 1146 note 91, p 1150 note 6 

51 C.J. p 270 note 38. 
"Issue" 

Word "issue," as used in statute 
providing that court may grant 
plaintiff any relief embraced within 
issue, is broader than complaint, 
where answer enlarges the same by 
introducing new matter. 'McAllister 
v. Union Indemnity Co., 42 P.2d 305, 
2 Cal.2d 457. 

Granting divorce on complaint ask- 
ing separation 

Even though husband's complaint 
asked only for separation and gen- 
eral relief, and no statute permits 
him to bring separation action, yet, 
where it alleged acts of cruelty en- 
titling him to divorce, it was held 
sufficient for that purpose, on de- 
fendant answering. Slettebak v. 
Slettebak, 201 N.W. 716, 48 S.D. 51. 

33. Ky. Perkins v. Hardwick, 121 
S.W.24 20, 275 Ky. 182. 

33 C.J. p 1146 note 90. 

34. Nev. Mariner v. Milisch, 200 P. 
478, 45 Nev. 193. 

33 C.J. p 1148 note 96. 

35. N.T. Pearce v. Knapp, 127 N.Y. 
S. 1100, 71 Misc. 324. 

Wis. Tiles v. Green, 64 N.W. 856, 
91 Wis. 217. 

3$. Wis. Numbers v. Union Mortg. 



Loan Co.. 247 N.W. 442, 211 Wis. 
30. 

37. Ark. Realty Inv. Co. v. Hig- 
gins, 91 S.W.2d 1030, 192 Ark. 423 
Morgan v. Scott-Mayer Commis- 
sion Co., 48 S.W.2d 838, 185 Ark. 
637. 

Cal. Martin v. Hall, 26 P.2d 288, 219 
Cal. 334 Knox v. Wolfe, App., 167 
P.2d 3 Rinker v. McKinley, 149 P. 
2d 859, 65 Cal.App.2d 109 Brskine 
v. Upham, 132 P.2d 219, 56 Cal. 
App.2d 235 Sonnicksen v. Son- 
nicksen, 113 P.2d 495, 45 Cal.App. 
2d 46. 

Fla. Semple v. -Semple, 105 So. 134, 
90 Fla. 7. 

Ga. Taylor v. Cureton, 25 S.E.2d 
815, 196 Ga. 28 Matson v. Crowe, 
19 <S.E.2d 288, 195 Ga. 578 Bleck- 
ley v. Bleckley, 5 S.R2d 206, 189 
Ga. 47 Bowers v. Dolen, 1 S.E.2d 
734, 187 Ga, 653-^Monroe v. Dia- 
mond Match Co., 185 S.E. 814, 182 
Ga. 438 Sanders v. Jones, 142 S. 
E. 680, 166 Ga. 18-6 Broderick v. 
Reid, 19 S.B. 18, 164 Ga. 474. 

Idaho. Barker v. McKellar, 296 P. 
196, 50 Idaho 226. 

111. Updike v. Smith, 39 N.B.2d 325, 
378 111. 600 Browning v. Brown- 
ing, 46 N.E.2d 101, 317 IlLApp. 
372, transferred, see 39 N.E.2d 
375, 379 HI. 29 Kaifer v. Kaifer, 
3 N.E.2d 886, 286 IlLApp. 433. 

Iowa. Wagner v. Northern Securi- 
ties Co., 284 N.W. 461, 226 Iowa 
568. 

Kan. Katschor v. Ley, 113 P.2d 127, 
153 Kan. 569. 

Ky.Bevins v. Ford, 194 S.W.2d 657, 
302 Ky. 346 National Savings & 
Building Ass'n v. Hutchinson, 144 
S.W.2d 1029, 284 Ky. 408 Dotson 
v. Peoples Bank, 27 iS.W.2d 673, 
234 Ky. 138. 

La. Abadie v. Gluck's Restaurant 
Corporation, 121 So. 757, 168 La. 
241 Lyons Planning Mills v. 
Guillot, App., 146 So. 700 Harris 
v. Henderson Land, Timber & In- 
vestment Co., 119 So. 893, 9 La. 
App. 279. Buckley v. Lindsey Mer- 
cantile Co., 5 La. App. 467 De 
Bellevue v. Couvillion, 3 La.App. 
568 Levy v. Ebeyer & Winteler, 
3 La.App. 500. 

Mass. J. Abrams & Co. v. Clark, 11 I 
N.EL2d 449, 298 Mass. 542 Har-l 

114 



vey v. Crooker, 166 N.E. 828, 267 
Mass. 279. 

Mich. People's Mortg. Corporation 
v. Wilton, 208 N.W. 60, 234 Mich. 
252. 

Mo. Homan v. Employers Reinsur- 
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.Sd 289, 
345 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163 Rains 
v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d 81, 338 Mo. 
275 State Bank of Willow 
Springs v. Lillibridge, 293 S.W. 
116, 316 Mo. 968 Breit v. Bow- 
land, App., 127 S.W.2d 71 Cun- 
ningham v. Kinnerk, 74 S.W.2d 
1107, 2-30 Mo.App. 749 Kreger 
Glass Co. v. Kreger, App., 49 S.W. 
2d 260. 

Mont. Torelle. v. Templeman, 21 P. 
2d 60, 94 Mont. 149. 

Neb. Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 22 
N.W.2d 414 Johnson v. Radio 
station W O W, 14 N.W.2d 666, 
144 Neb. 406, reversed on other 
grounds Radio Station WOW 
v. Johnson, 65 SjCt 1475, 326 tT.S. 
120, 89 L.Ed. 2092, mandate con- 
formed to 19 N.W.2d 53, -motion 
denied 66 S.Ct. 11 School Dist. 
No. 70, Red Willow County, v. 
Wood, 13 N.W.2d 153, 144 Neb. 241 
Copass v. Wilborn, 296 N.W. 565, 
1-39 Neb. 124 Hilton v. Clements, 
291 N.W. 483, 137 Neb. 791, 138 
Neb. 143 Burnham v. Bennison, 
236 N.W. 745, 121 Neb. 291. 

OkL Tucker v. Porter, 72 OP.2d 388, 
181 OkL 30 Brown v. Privette, 
234 P. 577, 109 Okl. 1 Owens v. 
Purdy, 217 P. 425, 90 Okl. 256. 

Or. McCredie v. McCredie, 294 P. 
361, 134 Or. 517 Kerschner v. 
Smith, 256 P. 195, 121 Or. 469 
Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpora- 
tion v. Oregon Logging & Timber 
Co., 241 P. 388, 116 Or. 440. 

Tex. Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d 
1-30, 140 Tex. 80 George v. Wil- 
liamson, Com. App., 23 S.W.2d 675 
'Morris v. Biggs & Co., Civ.App., 
165 S.W.2d 915, error dismissed . 
Railroad Commission of Texas v. 
Royal Petroleum Corporation, Civ. 
App., 93 S.W.2d 761, error dismiss- 
ed Great Southern Life Ins. Co. 
v. Williams, Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 
900 Blair v. Bird, Civ.App., 20 

' S."V^.2d 8"43 Sabens v. Cochrum, 
Civ.App., 292 S.W. 281 Hinn v. 
Forbes, Civ.App., 264 S.W. 190 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



49 



least where a defense has been made.88 A general 
prayer for relief is not, however, a coverall, 3 ^ and 
even under such a prayer the court cannot grant re- 
lief inconsistent with, or entirely different from, 
that which is specifically prayed for,40 or which is 



beyond or inconsistent with the allegations of the 
pleadings or the facts proved. 41 

Materiality of variance. A material variance be- 
tween the relief sought and that awarded has been 
held fatal to the judgment; 42 but it is otherwise 
where the variance is immaterial and so slight that 



Mima v. Hunken, Civ.App.. 262 
S.W. 930, error dismissed Nation- 
al Compress Co. v. Hamlin, 269 
S.W. 1024, 114 Tex. 375 Coward 
v. Booth, Civ.App., 251 S.W. 650, 
reversed on other grounds Booth 
v. Coward, Com.App. t 265 S.W. 
1026. 
Utah. Walker v. Singleton, 225 P. 

81, 63 Utah 283. 

W.Va. Bowman v. Hartford Fire 
Ins. Co., 169 S.E. 443, 113 W.Va, 
784. 

33 C.J. p 1148 note 342 C.J. p 143 
note 5747 C.J. p 430 note 71 
51 C.J. p 271 notes 42, 43. 
Belief allowable in equity under 
prayer for general relief see Equi- 
ty 607 b. 
Avoidance of circuit? of action 

Under prayer for general relief, 
court may render such judgment as 
would be given in new suit to avoid 
circuity of action. Harsh v. Avegno, 
3 La.App. 294. 

Judgment for possession in eject- 
ment action 

There may be a judgment for pos- 
session in an ejectment action al- 
though there is no specific prayer 
therefor, where the complaint con- 
tains proper averments, a general 
prayer for relief, and there is a 
finding for possession. Evans v. 
Schafer, 21 N.E. 448, 119 Ind. 49. 
Cancellation of instruments and res- 
titution of money paid 
In suit by vendee for rescission 
of a contract of purchase of land, a 
prayer for general relief was held 
to justify decree of canceling con- 
tract and notes and ordering restitu- 
tion of the money paid by purchas- 
er on the property. Loughry v. 
Cook, Tex.Civ.App., 2fr3 S.W. 333. 

88. Ky. Perkins v. Hardwick, 121 
S.W.2d 20, 275 Ky. 182 Hickman 
County Board of Drainage Com'rs 
v. Union Stock Land Bank, 8*3 S. 
W.2d 511, 259 Ky. 823 Young v. 
Barnett, 80 S.W.2d 16, 258 y. 330 
Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. Ar- 
nold, 75 S.W.2d 751, 256 Ky. 80-r- 
Farley v. Gibson, 30 S.W.2d 876, 
235 Ky, 164. 

La. Muse v. Sharp, App., 155 So. 
300. 

Mo. Southwest Pump & Machinery 
Co. v. Forslund, 29 S.W.2d 165, 
225 Mo.App. 262. 

39. Ky. Oawood v. Cawood's 
Adm'x, 147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201. 

40. U.S. In re Wesley Corporation, 
D.C.Ky., 18 FJSupp. 347. , \ 



Ga. Brockett v. Maxwell, 35 S.E.2d 
906 Christopher v. Whitmire, 34 
S.E.2d 100, 199 Ga. 280 Taylor 
v. Cureton, 25 S.R2d 815, 196 
Ga. 28. 

Iowa. Davis v. Davis, 229 N.W. 855, 
209 Iowa 1186; 

Ky.-JCawood v. Cawood's Adm'x, 
147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201 Jame- 
son v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d 923, 
280 Ky. 554. 

La, Stubbs v. Imperial Oil & Gas 
Products Co., 114 So. 595, 164 La. 

. 689. 

Or. Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpo- 
ration v. Oregon Logging & Tim- 
ber Co., 241 OP. 388, 116 Or. 4'40. 

Tex. Jennings v. Texas Farm 
Mortg. Co., 80 S.W.2d 9-31, 124 Tex. 
593 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. 
v. Collins, Com.App., 61 S.W.2d 84 
Ellzey v. Allen, Civ.App., 172 
S.W.2d 70*3, error dismissed Tabb 
v. City of Mt. Pleasant, Civ.App.. 
12 S.W.2d 831 Vanlandingham v. 
Terry, Civ. App., 293 S.Wt 252. 

Va. Winston v. Winston, 130 S.B. 
784, 144 Va. 848. 

33 C.J. p 1149 note 4. 

Specific performance in suit for re- 
scission 

A purchaser of land whose suit 
for rescission and recovery of pur- 
chase price was barred was not en- 
titled to specific performance under 
his prayer for general relief, since 
right to specific performance was 
inconsistent with right to rescind 
and might depend on wholly differ- 
ent facts. Wall v. Zynda, 278 N.W. 
66, 283 Mich. 260, 114 A.L.H. 1521. 

41. U.S. In re Wesley Corporation, 
DJC.Ky., 18 F.Supp. 347. 

Cal. -Morrow v. Morrow, 105 P.2d 
129, 40 Cal.App.2d 474 Petition 
of Furness, 218 P. 61, 62 CaLApp. 
753. 

Ga. Comstock v. Tarbush, 37 S.B. 
2d 148, transferred see, APP-. 37 
S.E.2d -925 Christopher v. Whit- 
mire, 34 S.B.2d 100, 199 Ga. 280 
Taylor v. Cureton, 25 S.B.2d 815, 
196 Ga. 28. 

Ind. Denney v. Peters, 10 N.B.2d 
754, 104 Ind.App. 504. 

Iowa. Manassa v. Garland, 206 N. 
W. 38, 200 Iowa 1129. 

Ky.Cawood v. Cawood's Adm'x, 147 
S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201 Jameson 
v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d 923, 280 
Ky. 554. 

Mass. Harbour v. Sampson, 165 K. 
B. 14, 266 Mass. 180. 

Minn. Briggs v. Kennedy Mayon- 

115 



naise Products, 297 N.W. 342, 209 
Minn. 312. 

Miss. Kennington-Saenger Theatres 
v. State ex rel. Dist. Atty., 18 So. 
2d 483, 196 Miss. 841, 153 A.L.H. 
883. 

Mo. Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d 
504 Fielder v. Fielder, App., 6 S. 
W.2d 968. 

Nev. Buaas v. Buaas, 147 P.2d 495, 
62 Nev. 232. 

Or. Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpo- 
ration v. Oregon Logging & Tim- 
ber Co., 241 P. 388, 116 Or. 440. 

Tenn. Merritt v. Merritt, 10 Tenn. 
App. 369. 

Tex. Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d 
130, 140 Tex. 80 Verschoyle v. 
Holifield, 123 S.W.Sd 878, 132 Tex. 
516 Adleson v. B. F. Dittmar Co., 
80 S.W.2d 939, 124 Tex. 564 Jen- 
nings v. Texas Farm Mortg. Co., 
80 S.W.2d 9/31, 124 Tex. 593 Ar- 
rington v. McDaniel, 14 S.W.2d 
1009, questions answered 25 S.W. 
2d 295, 119 Tex. 148. 

51 C.J. p 271 note 41. 

'specific performance in suit to quiet 

title 

Prayer for general relief in peti- 
tion to quiet title containing no al- 
legation for affirmative equitable re- 
lief does not authorize judgment for 
specific performance. Congregation 
B'Nai Abraham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 
899, 323 Mo. 776. 

Personal Judgment in stockholder's 

representative action 
"General relief" in a representa- 
tive action by a stockholder does not 
comprehend a personal judgment In 
favor of stockholder against corpo- 
ration based on debt or other liabil- 
ity either as part of his cause of 
action against corporation entitling 
him to sue as its representative or 
the corporation's cause of action 
against the wrongdoer. Briggs v. 
Kennedy Mayonnaise Products/ 297 
N.W. 342, 209 Minn. 312. 

Foreclosure of lien in tort action 

Under prayer for general relief in 
action based on alleged tort and 
wherein relief sought was by way 
of damages, plaintiff was held not 
entitled to foreclosure of lien, where 
there was no alternative prayer for 
foreclosure. McKee v* Mathias, Tex. 
Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 744, error dis- 
missed. 

42. HL Condit v. 'Stevenson, 13 111. 
App. 417. . 



49 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



plaintiff would be permitted to amend at any time 
without costs. 48 

Alternative relief. A judgment for alternative 
relief is sometimes proper where demanded, 44 but it 
is not proper if not asked for in the pleadings. 45 
Where relief on two counts is sought in the alterna- 
tive, it has been held that judgment should not be 
rendered on both counts. 4 * 

b. Affirmative Belief to Defendant 

In general, an answer which has demanded no af- 
firmative relief, such as an answer setting up merely a 
defense, will not support a judgment granting affirma- 
tive relief to the defendant. On proper pleadings and 
proof, however, a defendant may have affirmative re* 
lief in accordance with that demanded by him. 



It is a general rule that where the answer prays 
for no affirmative relief, defendant can have none, 
and a judgment granting affirmative relief in such 
cases is erroneous because not in conformity with 
the issues raised by the pleadings. 4 * An answer 
which sets up merely a defense will not support a 
judgment giving defendant affirmative relief ; 4 $ but 
the fact that pleadings are defensive in their nature 
does not mean that they may not also be used as a 
basis for affirmative relief, where the facts pleaded 
are sufficient to entitle the pleader to affirmative re- 
lief, and where there is a prayer for such relief. 49 
An affirmative judgment for defendant is proper 
where it is justified by the pleadings and proof, 50 
particularly under codes and practice acts provid- 



43. Mass. Hargrave v. American 
Steel & Wire Co., 106 N.E. 637, 219 
Mass. 6. 

33 C.J. p 1145 note 87. 

44. Okl. Steiner v. TTrquart, 225 
P. 695, 99 Okl. 60. 

45. Tex. Jennings v. Texas Farm 
Mortg. Co., 80 S.W.2d 931, 124 
Tex, 593. 

46. Mo. Schroll v. Noe, App., 297 
S.W. 99*9, Quashal of opinion de- 
nied State ex rel. Noe v. Cox, 19 
S.W.2d 695, 323 Mo. 520. 

Ohio. Priller v. Auglaize Hotel Co., 
App., 36 N.E.2d 1019. , 

47. Conn. Switzer v, Turansky, 124 
A. 720, 101 Conn. 60. 

Ga, Greenwood v. Greenwood, 160 
S.E. 392, 173 Ga. 348. 

Iowa. Liscomb IS tat e Sav. Bank v. 
Leise, 207 N.W. 330, 201 Iowa 353. 

Kan. Burgner-Bowman Lumber Co. 
v. McCord-Kistler Mercantile Co., 
216 P. 815, 114 Kan. 10, 35 A-L.R. 
242. 

gy. Jacobs T, Wells, 111 S.W.2d 
5?4, 271 Ky. 82 Dunn v. Cham- 
pion, 99 S.W.2d 813, 266 Ky. 757. 

La. David v. Guilbeau, App., 180 So. 
850 Stafford v. Tolmas Realty 
Co., App., 146 So. 61, transferred, 
see 139 So. 766, 174 La. 83 Hal- 
pern v. Cornelison, 133 So. 898, 
16 La.App. 344. 

Mich. McCaslin v. Schouten, 292 N. 
W. 696, 294 Mich. 180 Reich Y. 
Schmidt, 218 N.W. 671, 242 Mich. 
130. 

Miss. Hayes v. National Surety Co., 
153 So. 515, 169 Miss. 676. 

Mo. Friedel v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d 
9, '32-9 Mo. '22 3tate ex rel. Dura- 
flor Products Co. v. Pearcy, 29 S. 
W.2d 83, 32.5 Mo. 835 Chilton v. 
Chilton, App., 297 S.W. 457. 

N.T. Studebaker .Corporation of 
America v. Silverberg, 199 N.Y.S. 
190. 

Okl. Reinauer v. Davis, 130 P.2d 
91, 191 Okl. 366. 

Pa. The Maccabees v. Cappas, 43 A. 
2d 538, 157 Pa.Super. 481. 



R.I. Si-ravo v. Whitman, 151 A. 893, 

51 R.L 102. 
Tex. Smith v. Blancas, Civ.App., 

87 S.W.2d 781, error refused 

Gaulden v. Antone, Civ.App., 279 

iS.W. 560 Chapman v. Sunshine 

Oil Corporation, Civ.App., 256 S. 

W. 327 Moulton v. Deloach, Civ. 

App., 253 S.W. 303. 
33 C.J. p 1150 notes 8, 9. 
Abandonment of cross action 

Where cross action was set up in 
original , and second amended an- 
swer, but not mentioned in subse- 
quent amended answers, such cross 
action was abandoned, and judgment 
in favor of cross defendant on his 
cross action was erroneous. Hink- 
ley v. Brewer, Tex.CivJV.pp., 274 S.W. 
227. 
Overpayments 

In an action for the balance due 
on the purchase price of property, or 
on a contract, defendant cannot re- 
cover an overpayment which the 
evidence shows he made, where he 
has not interposed a counterclaim 
or asked for such relief. 
Ky. Runyon v. Runyon, 251 S.W. 

173, 199 Ky. 878. 
Tex. Branch v. Smith, Civ.App.. 245 

S.W. 799. 

Pailure of plaintiff to appear at 
the trial does not warrant affirma- 
tive relief in favor of defendant 
where there is no plea or other de- 
fense by defendant in the nature of 
a cross action against plaintiff. 
Ellard v. Simpson, 142 S.E. 855, 166 
Ga. 278. 
33 C.J. p 1150 note 8 [a]. 

Alternative reconveutional demands 
Where particular relief in recon- 
vention is demanded by defendant 
only in .the event that certain other 
relief is decreed, and such other re- 
lief is not decreed, the reccmventdon- 
al demands of defendant, made in 
the alternative, necessarily fall and 
drop out of the xjase. Tyson v. Surf 
Oil Co., 196 So. 336, 195 La. 2-48. 

4& 111. Whitaker Paper Co. v., 

116 



Galesburg Mail Co., 238 Hl.App. 
600. 

Ind. Johnson v. Collins, 1 Blackf. 
166. 

Tex. Dean v. Maxwell, Civ.App., 173 
S.W.2d 246 Scales r. Lindsay, 
Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 286, error dis- 
missed. 

Wash. City Bond & Share v. Kle- 
ment, 5 P.2d 523, 165 Wash. 408. 

Wis. Marshall v. Marshall, 284 N. 
W. 541, 230 Wis. 504. 

33 C.J. p 1151 note 16. 

49. Tex. R. R. Stolley Corpora- 
tion of Austin, Tex., v. Quebe- 
deaux, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 266, 
error dismissed. 

50. Ky. Wagner v. Swoope, 64 S. 
W.2d 395, 246 Ky. 19. 

Mo. Missouri Lumber & Mining Co. 
v. Hassell, 298 S.W. 47 Brown v. 
Wilson, App., 131 S.W.2d 848, 
quashed on other grounds State 
ex rel. Brown v. Hughes, 137 'S.W. 
2d 54*4, 345 Mo. 958*. 
Mont Mather v. Musselman, 278 

P. 998, 85 Mont. 552. 
Okl. Watts v. Meriwether, 84 P.2d 

643, 184 Okl. (32. 
S.C. Little v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174, 

180 S.C. 149. 

Tex Bustamante v. Haynes, Civ. 
App., 55 S.W.2d 137, error dis- 
missed Ruby v. Davis, Civ.App., 
277 S.W. 430. 
33 C.J. p 1150 note 10. 
Accounting- 

Defendant may be entitled to an 
accounting, notwithstanding the ab- 
sence of a demand therefor in his 
pleading, where the circumstances 
warrant an accounting and defend- 
ant has been led to believe through- 
out the trial that an accounting 
would be had. Pearson v. Juarez, 
248 P. 278, 78 CaLApp. 122. 
Damages 

(1) In a proper case, damages 
may be awarded to defendant al- 
though he has not specifically 
prayed for such relief. 
ArK. Albersen v. Klanke. 6 S.W.2d 
292, 177 Ark. 288. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



50 



ing that the judgment may grant to defendant any 
affirmative relief to which he may be entitled. 51 
Ordinarily a judgment granting defendant affirma- 
tive relief must be founded on, and be responsive 
to, his pleadings, and cannot rest on the pleading 
of some other party; 52 but a defendant may some- 
times have affirmative relief against a codefendant 
notwithstanding he has served no pleading enti- 
tling him to such relief, where the facts justifying 
such relief are set forth in the complaint. 53 

In general, any affirmative relief to a defendant 
should be in conformity with that demanded by 
him. 54 The prayer for relief, however, does not 
necessarily determine the relief to which defendant 
is entitled, 55 and under some circumstances defend- 



ant's failure to ask for affirmative relief will not 
preclude final adjudication of the respective rights 
of the parties. 56 

50. Limitation and Conformity to Is- 
sues 

Judgments ordinarily must be responsive to the Is- 
sues presented in the pleadings, and it has frequently 
been held that Judgments beyond such issues are void. 
The issues may be broadened by consent of the parties, 
however, in which case the judgment may embrace the 
issues actually litigated. 

Judgments must be responsive to the issues pre- 
sented in the pleadings or litigated between the par- 
ties, and issues not so raised may not be deter- 
mined. 57 Where there are several good pleas in 



Ind. Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Cor- 
poration v. Linsky, 192 N.E. 715, 
99 Ind.App. 691. 

(2) Defendant's right to recover 
damages may be settled in same ac- 
tion in which plaintiff asserts right 
to damages against defendant, when 
both claims Involve determination 
of same questions of fact and con- 
sideration of same evidence, whether 
or not cross action is involved. Op- 
pie v. Bay, 195 N.B. 81, 208 Ind. 
450. 
Counterclaim as sole defense 

Where a counterclaim is the only 
defense set up, a judgment for de- 
fendant must necessarily allow the 
counterclaim. Wise v. Rosenblatt, 
12 N.Y.S. 288, 16 Daly 496. 

51. N.Y. Clegg v. American News- 
paper Union, 60 How.Pr. 498, af- 
firmed 82 Hun 162, 66 HowJPr. 411. 

33 C.J. p 1151 note 15. 

52. Tex. Lee v. British & Ameri- 
can- Mortg. Co., 40 S.W. 1041, 16 
Tez.Civ.App. 671. 

83 C.J. p 1151 note 14. 

53. S.C. Toumans v. Toumans. 121 
S.E. 674, 128 S.C. 31. 

admission of allegations of com- 
plaint 

In action by insured on policy con- 
taining 5 provision that any loss 
was payable to mortgagee as his 
interest might appear, mortgagee, 
who was made party defendant and 
filed answer admitting allegations of 
complaint, was entitled to propor- 
tionate share of insurer's liability 
notwithstanding his failure to file 
affirmative pleading or prayer for 
affirmative relief, since judgment 
was bar to any further right mort- 
gagee . might assert Commercial 
Union Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. 
Wade, 8 N.E.2d 1009, 103 Ind.App. 
461. 

54. La. Succession of Markham, 
156 So. 225, 180 La. 211. 

Tex. Wilkirson v. Yarbrough, Com. 
App. f 257 S.W. 535 Golden West 



Oil Co. No. 1 v. Golden Rod Oil 
Co. No. 1, Civ.App., 285 S.W. 631, 
affirmed Golden Hod Oil Co. No. 1 
v. Golden West Oil Co. No. 1, Com. 
App., 293 S.W. 167. 
Failure to demur to or answer 

counterclaim 

Plaintiff, although not having filed 
any demurrer or answer to counter- 
claim, could attack those portions of 
final decree granting relief on coun- 
terclaim beyond scope of the plead- 
ings, since, even if counterclaim 
had been taken for confessed, it 
would not support a decree beyond 
scope of relief sought. Medlinsky 
v. Premium Cut Beef Co., 57 N.B.2d 
31, 317 Mass. 25. 
Possession granted tinder prayer for 

general relief 

Defendant's claim of ownership of 
house, with prayer for general re- 
lief, was held sufficient to sustain 
Judgment for its possession. Olcott 
v. Reese, Tex.Civ.App., 291 S.W. 261. 
In ejectment, where the court finds 
for defendant on all the issues a 
decree should be entered as prayed 
in the answer. Chouteau Land & 
Lumber Co. v. Chrisman, 72 S.W. 
1062, 172 Mo. 610 19" C.J. P 1210 
note 25. 

55. Mo. Eckhardt v. Bock, App., 
159 S.W.2d 395. 

T.Y. Home Life Ins. Co. v. Klein. 
25 N.Y.S.2d 215. 

56. Wash. Pratt v. Rhodes, 253 P. 
640, 142 Wash. 411, reheard 256 
P. 503, 142 Wash. 411. 

57. U.S. Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C. 
CJLMo., 140 F.2d 852 Deitrick v. 
Standard Surety & Casualty Co. 
of New York, C.C.A.Mass., 90 P. 
2d 862, affirmed 58 S.Ct. 696, 303 
TLS. 471, 82 L.Ed. 962, rehearing 
denied 58 S.Ct. 948, 304 U.S. 588, 
82 L.Ed, 1548 Goodrich Transit 
Co. v. City of Chicago, C.C.A.I1L, 
4 P.2d 636 Ortlieb v. Baumer, D. 

, C.N.Y., 6 F.Supp. 58. 
Ala. Pridgen v. Shadgett, 12 So.2d 
395, 244 Ala. 167 Alabama Pow- 

117 



er Co. v. Owens, 181 So. 283, 236 
Ala. 96. 

Ariz. Wall v. Superior Court of 
Yavapai County, 89 (P.2d 624, 53 
Ariz. 344, 

Ark. Evans v. U. S. Anthracite Coal 
Co., 21 !S.W.2d 952, 180 Ark. 578. 

CaL Ayoob v. Ayoob, App., 168 
P.2d 462 Hyde v. Hagen, App., 
161 P.2d 242 Berg v. Berg, 132 P. 
2d 871. 56 Cal.App.2d 4-95 Wallace 
v. Otis, 119 P.2d 195, 47 Cal.App.2d 
814 Dreifus v. Marx, 104 P.2d 
10SO, 40 Cal.App.2d 461 Overell v. 
Overell. 64 P.2d 483, 18 Cal.App.2d 
499. 

Conn. Spitz v. Abrams, 20 A.2d 616, 
128 Conn. 121 Hill v. Employers' 
Liability Assur. Corporation, 188 
A. 277. 122 Conn. 193 O'Hara v. 
Hartford Oil Heating Co., 138 A. 
458, 106 Conn. 468. 

Fla. Gruber v. Cobey, 12 So.2d 461, 

152 Fla. 591 East Coast Stores v. 
Cuthbert, 133 So. 863, 101 Pla. 25. 

Hawaii. Corpus Juris cited in Pires 
v. Pires,. 29 Hawaii 849, 852. 

Idaho. Nielson v. Garrett, 43 P.2d 
380, 55 Idaho 240 Angel v. Mellen, 
285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750. 

Ind. Old First Nat, Bank & Trust 
Co. of Fort Wayne v. Snouffier, 192 
N.E. 369, 99 Ind.App. 325 Fox v. 
Wallace, 151 N.E. 835, 88 Ind.App. 
235. 

Iowa. Corpus Juris cited in Ray- 
burn v. Maher, 288 N.W. 136, 142, 
227 Iowa 274 Bennett v. Green- 
wait, 286 N.W. 722, 226 Iowa 1113 
Wagner v. Northern Securities 
Co., 284 N.W. 461, 226 Iowa 568 
Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New 
York v. Bank of Plymouth. 237 
N.W. 234, 213 Iowa 1058. 

Kan. Penn . Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 
Tittel, 111 P.2d 1116, 153 Kan. 
530, rehearing denied 114 P.2d 312, 

153 Kan. 7'47 Leshure v. Zumalt, 
100 P.2d 643, 151 Kan. 737 Baird 
v. Bureman, 26 P.2d 272, 138 Kan. 
381 Devlin v. City of Pleasanton, 
288 P. 595, 130 Kan. 766 Herring 
v. Blue Mound Mining Co., 257 P. 
955, 124 Kan. 171. 



50 



JUDGMENTS 



49 O.J.S. 



bar to the whole cause of action, plaintiff cannot 
recover unless he succeeds on all the issues. 58 A 
judgment should not limit rights of the parties 
which are not involved in the action and which may 
arise or be interfered with in the future, especially 
when uncertainty or confusion would result;^ and 
if, under the pleadings, the court is without juris- 
diction to determine particular issues, it is without 
jurisdiction to reserve such issues for future deter- 
mination. 60 



A judgment on issues not made by the pleadings 
is at least erroneous, and may be set aside or re- 
versed in a proper proceeding for that purpose ;W 
but many cases go further, and hold that judg- 
ments based on issues not made by the pleadings or 
litigated by the parties are coram non judice and 
void, at least in so far as they go beyond such is- 
sues,' 62 on the theory that a court has no jurisdic- 
tion to pass on questions not submitted to it for 



Ky. Newsom v. Damron, 193 S.W.2d 

643. 

Mich. -Ward v. Hunter Machinery 
Co., 248 N.W. 864. 26i3 Mich. 445. 
Mo. Brandt v. Fanners Bank of 
Chariton County, 182 S.W.2d 281, 
353 Mo. 25$ Brown v. Wilson, 155 
$.W.2d 176, 348 Mo. 658 In re 
Ermeling's Estate, 119 S.W.2d 755, 
transferred, see, App., 131 S.W.2d 
912 Unrig v. Hill-Behan Lumber 
Co., 110 SS.W.2d 412, 341 Mo. 851 
Rains v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d 81, 
3.38 Mo. 275 Davis v. Johnson, 58 
S.W.2d 746, 332 Mo. 417. trans- 
ferred, see, APP., 47 S.W.2d 121 
Friedel v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d 9, 
329 Mo. 22 Congregation B'Nai 
Abraham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 
323 Mo. 776 Ex parte Fowler, 275 
S.W 529, 310 Mo. 339 Smith v. 
Smith, App., 192 S.W.2d 691, fol- 
lowed in 192 S.W.2d 700 Riney v. 
Riney, App.. 117 5S.W.2d 698 
Burns v. Ames Realty Co., App., 31 
S.W.2d 274 Fielder v. Fielder. 
App., 6 S.W.2d 968. 
Mont. Wallace v. Goldberg, 231 OP. 

56, 72 Mont. 234. 
Neb. Bowman v. Cobb, 258 N.W. 

535, 128 Neb. 28-9. 

NT. Helfhat v. Whitehouse, 179 
N.E. 493, 258 N.T. 274 Interna- 
tional Photo Recording Machines 
v. Microstat Corp., 56 N.T.S.2d 
277, 269 App.Div. 485 In re Goe- 
bel's Estate, 33 N.Y.S.2d 549, 263 
App.Div. 5'1 6 People v. Ribas, 276 
N.T.S. 551, 153 Misc. 703. 
Ohio. Licht v. Woertz, 167 NJ3. 614 

32 Ohio App. HI. 

Or. Reed v. Hollister, 212 P. 367, 106 

Or 407, error dismissed Hollistei 

v. Reed, 44 S.Ct. 333, 264 U.S. 599 

68 L.Ed. 869. 

Pa. Bradford Gasoline Co. v. Han 

ley Co., 173 A. 401, 815 Pa. 441. 
S.C. Parker Peanut Co. v. Felder 

34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C. 6-3. 
S.D.-^Severson v. Bide, 216 N.W 
581, 52 S.D. 20 Deming v. Nelson 
210 N.W. 726, 50 S.D. .484. 
Tex. Price v. Seiger, Com.App., 4 
S.W.2d 729 De Walt v. Universa 
Film Exchanges, Civ. App., 132 S 
W.2d 421, error dismissed, Judg- 
ment correct Lewis v. Gamble 
Civ.App., -113 S.W.2d 659 Texas 
& N. O. R. Co. v. Harris, Civ.App 
101 S.W.2d 640, error dismissed 
Owen v. King, Civ-App., 84 S.W.2 



743, reversed on other grounds 111 
S.W.2d 695, 130 Tex. 614, 114 A. 
L.R. 859 Mutual Life Ins. Ass'n 
v. Smelley, Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 
1106 American Rio Grande Land 
& Irrigation Co. v. Bellman, Civ. 
App., 272 S.W. 550. 
Va. Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.E.2d 54-8, 
179 Va. 715. 



Wash. Beadle v. Barta, 123 P.2d 
761, 13 Wash.2d 67. 
C.J. p 798 note 6519 C.J. p 1210 
note 21 33 C.J. p 1151 notes 17, 
1942 C.J. p 1287 note 14. 
"There is no principle better es- 
tablished than what is not juridical- 
y presented cannot be juridically 
lecided." Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P. 
13, 104, 67 Utah 371. 

Character of lane 

Where pleadings do not raise is- 
sue, court should not determine 
whether or not lane over which 
>laintin?s claim means of access is 
jublic or private. ^Lathrop v. Gary, 
232 N.W. $97, 202 Wis. 237. 

Failure to demur will not justify 
judgment on issue not Within plead- 
ing. Farnham v. Schreiber, 149 A. 
393, 111 Conn. 38. 
Immaterial or unsupported issues 



(1) The court may ignore an im- 
material issue in rendering judg- 
mentWalton v. Stinson, Tex.Civ 
App., 140 S.W.2d 497, error refused. 

(2) In rendering judgment the 
court may ignore an issue not sup- 
ported by evidence. Goff v. Jane 
way, 99 S.W. -602, 30 Ky.L. 705 -28 
C.J. p 1056 note 55. 

Irrelevant abstract queries 

Judgments may not be founded 
on issues outside the pleadings in 
answer to solicitation on irrelevan 
abstract legal queries propounded bs 
the parties and argued in thei 
briefs. Raymond v. State Clvi 
Service Commission, 32 P.2d 331, 10 * 
Colo. 4'58. 

Scope of InjTULctive relief 

In suit for injunction, growing ou 
of labor dispute, as defined in stat 
ute, no acts should be enjoined oth 
er than those mentioned in the com 
plaint. Boise Street Car Co. v. Vi 
Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 502. 

58. Ala. Horan v. Gray & Dudle 

118 



Hardware Co., 48 So. 1029, 159 Ala. 

159. 

3 C.J. p 1168 note 31. 
9. Cal. Cameron v. Feather River 

Forest Homes, 33 P.2d 884, 189 

CaLApp. 373. 

60. U.S. Osage Oil & Refining Co, 
v. Continental Oil Co., C.C.A.Okt, 

34 F.2d 585. 

61. Conn. Shaw v. Spelke, 147 A. 
675, 110 Conn. 20'8. 

d. Fisher v. Rosander, 151 N.E. 

12, 84 Ind.App. 694. 
owa. Corpus Juris cited in, Ray- 
burn v. Maher, 288 N.W. 136, 142. 

227 Iowa 274. 
tfeb. Green v. Axtell Lumber Co., 

-213 N.W. 401, 116 Neb. 603. 
Okl. Bishop v. Franks, 107 P.2d 358, 

188 OkL 196 Holshouser v. Hol- 

shouser, 26 P.2d 189, 16-6 Okl. 45. 
Tex. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 

of Pittsburgh v. Richards, Civ. 

App., 278 -S.W. 488 Williams v. 

Borchers, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 1053. 
33 C.J. P 1152 note 21. 

62. U.S. Corpus Juris cited In 
Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. Con- 
tinental Oil Co., C.'C.A.Okl., 34 F. 
2d 585, 588. 

Cal. .Wallace v. Otis, 119 P.2d 195, 
47 Cal.App.2d 814. 

Kan. Southern Kansas Stage Lines 
Co. v. Webb, 41 P:2d 1025, 141 
Kan. 476. 

Ky. Covington Trust Co. of Cov- 
ington v. Owens, 129 S.W.2d 18-6, 
278 Ky. 695 Corpus Juris cited in 
Dotson v. People's Bank, 27 S.W. 
2d -673, 674, 234 Ky. 138 Lincoln 
County Board of Education v. 
Board of Trustees of Stanford 
Graded Common School Dist, 7 
S.W.2d 499, 225 Ky. 21. 

Mich. Hartley v. A. I. Rodd (Lum- 
ber Co., 276 N.W. 712, '2-S2 Mich. 
652. 

Mo. Riley v. La Font, 174 S.W.2d 
S57 Corpus Juris cited in Weath- 
erford v. Spiritual Christian Un- 
ion Church, 163 S.W.Sd 916, 918 
Brown v. Wilson, 155 -S.W.2d 176, 
348 Mo. -658 State ex rel. Fidelity 
& Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Al- 
len, 85 S.W.2d 455 State ex reL 
Gatewood v. Trimble, 62 S.W.2d 
756, 833 Mo. 207 -Button v. Ander- 
son, 31 S.W.2d 1026, 3-2* Mo. 304 
Hecfcer v. Bleish, 3 S.W.2d 1008, 
$19 Mo. 149 Brandt v. Farmers 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



51 



decision. 68 If the excessive part of the judgment 
cannot be readily separated from that which is with- 
in the jurisdiction of the court by virtue of the 
pleadings and proof, the entire judgment has been 
held to be void. 64 

Issues broadened by consent. Parties may, if 
they so elect, depart from the issues made by the 
pleadings, and try other questions relating to the 
merits of the controversy by consent or acquies- 
cence, and in such cases the judgment is regular 
and binding on them, 65 the court treating as hav- 
ing been made the amendment which ought to have 
been made conforming the pleadings to the proof, 66 
notwithstanding no formal amendment of the plead- 
ings has been filed; 67 but a mere agreement that 
a pleading shall be amended in a certain particular 
does not alter the issues until the amendment is 
in fact made. 68 

When an issue is tried which is not within the 
pleadings, no duty rests on the court to render a 
judgment thereon, and a refusal or failure to do 
so is not error. 69 Mere stipulations as to the facts 
of a case, or the evidence of facts, cannot make a 



case broader than it appears by the allegations of 
the pleadings, and do not entitle a party to any re- 
lief beyond that to which the averments entitle 
him. 70 Evidence which, although received without 
objection, has no legitimate relation to the issues 
which form the basis of the action, or is in abso- 
lute conflict with the cause of action which is set 
out in the complaint, may not be deemed to sup- 
port a judgment at variance with the pleadings. 71 

51. Applications of Rules in General 

a. Parties 

b. Property affected 

c. Quieting title 

d. Other applications 

a. Parties 

(1) In general 

(2) Personal or representative capacity 

(1) In General 

The judgment must follow the pleadings and proof 
with respect to the particular plaintiffs and defendants 
for and against whom It Is rendered. 



Bank of Chariton County, App., 
177 S.W.2d 667, reversed on other 
grounds 182 S.W.2d 281, 353 Mo. 
259 Dickey v. Dickey, App., 132 
S.W.2d 1026 Schell v. F. E. Ran- 
som Coal & Grain Co., App., 79 S. 
W.2d 543 Texas Empire Pipe 
Line Co. v. Stewart, App., 35 S. 
W.2d 627, reversed on other 
grounds 55 S.W.2d 283, 331 Mo. 
'525 Burns v. Ames Realty Co., 
App., '31 S.W.Sd 274 Owens v. Mc- 
Cleary, App., 273 S.W. 145 Raney 
v. Home Ins. fio., 246 S.W. 57, 213 
Mo.App. 1. 

!Nev. Schultz v. Mexican Dam & 
Ditch Co., 224 P. 804, 47 Nev. 453. 

2O. Trenton Trust Co. v. Gane, 6 
A.2d 112, 125 N.J.Bd. 389, affirmed 
8 A.2d 708, 126 N.J.EQ. 273 Hacfc- 
ensack Trust Co. v. Kelly, 180 A. 
621, 118 N.J.Eq. 587, affirmed 187 
A. 195, 120 N.J.Ea. 596. 

Okl. Hinkle v. Jones, -66 P.2d 1073, 
ISO Okl. 17 Fuqua v. Watson, 46 
P.2d 486, 172 Okl. 624-Oity of 
Seminole v. Fields, 43 P.2d 64, 172 
Okl. 167 Electrical Research 
Products Y. Haniotis Bros., 39 P. 
2d 42, 170 Okl. 150 Winters v. 
Birch, 36 P.2d 907, 169 Okl. 237-^ 
State ex rel. Shull v. Moore, 27 P. 
2d 1048, 167 Okl. 28 Henson v. 
Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709, 

165 Okl. 1 Wright v. Farmers' 
Nat Bank of Oklahoma City, 243 
P. 512, 116 Okl. 74 Hoffman v. 
Webb, -240 P. 104, 113 Okl. 150 
Le Clate v. Calls Him, 233 P. 1087, 

166 Oia 247. 

Or. Doan v. Dean, 300 P. 1027, 136 
Or 94, 8-6 ULL.R. 79. 



Tex Edinburg Irr. Co. v. Ledbetter, 

Civ.App., 247 S.W. 335, modified 

on other grounds, Com. App., 286 

S.W. 185. 

Wis. Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 276 

N.W. 325, 226 Wis. 285. 
33 C.J. p 1152 note 2251 C.J. p 270 

note 26. 

Question within court's general Ju- 
risdiction 

A judgment which determines ques- 
tions not within the court's juris- 
diction, because not in issue, is to 
that extent void, although the ques- 
tion decided may be within the gen- 
eral jurisdiction of the court Hall- 
gren v. Williams, Neb., 20 N.W.2d 
499Patersen v. Dethlefs, 2*3 N.W. 
155, 139 Neb. 572. 

63. Conn. Corpus Juris cited in 
Spitz v. Abrams, 20 A.2d $16. 6i'7, 
128 Conn. 121. 

33 C.J. p 1153 note 25. 

64. OkL Central Nat Oil Co. v. 
Continental Supply Co., 249 P* 347, 
119 Okl. 190. 

65. CaL Drullinger v. Hrskine, 
App., 163 P.2d 48. 

Conn. Corpus' Juris cited in Spitz 
v. Abrams, 20 A.2d 616, 617, 128 
Conn. 121. 

Ga. Southern (Lumber Co. v. Ed- 
wards, 117 S.E. 252, 30 Ga.App. 
223. 

Ky. Lodge v. Williams, 243 S.W. 
1011, 195 Ky. 773. 

La. W. J. & C. Sherrouse v. Phenix, 
128 So. 536, 14 La.App. 629. 

Mont Corpus Juris cited in Wal- 
lace v. Goldberg, 231 P. 56, 57, 72 
Mont 234. 

119 



Neb. Corpus Juris quoted in Clark 

v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661, $64, 139 

Neb. 446. 

KM. Davis v. Savage, 158 P.2d 851. 
N.T. Claris v. Richards, 183 NJBL 

904, 260 N.T. 419. ' 

Tenn. East Lake Lumber Box Co. 

v. Simpson, 5 Tenn. App. 51. 
33 C.J. p 1154 note 56. 
Injection of issue at own peril 

Party who injects into action is- 
sues not covered by pleadings does 
so at peril of any judgment he may 
obtain. Perez v. Wilson, 260 P. 838, 
8-6 C&LApp. 28. 

68; U.S. Reynolds v. Stockton, 11 

S.Ct 773, 140 U.S. 254, 35 LJEd. 

464, 27 Abb.N.Cas.,N.Y., 112. 
Neb. Corpus Juris quoted in Clark 

v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661, 664, 139 

Neb. 446. 
N.M. In re Field's Estate, -60 P.2d 

945, 40 N.M. 423. 

67. OkL Berglan v. Kuhlman, T7 P. 
2d 47, 182 Okl. 168. 

68. N.J. Jones v. Davenport 17 A. 
570, 45 N.J.Eq. 77, reversed on oth- 
er grounds 19 A. 22, 46 N.J.Eq. 
237. 

69. Neb. Bowman v. Cobb, 253 N. 
W. 535, 128 Neb. 289 % 

70. U.S. Corpus Juris cited in 

Walling v. Paramount-Richards 
Theatres, D.C.La., 61 F.Supp. 290, 
304. 
CaL Hicks v. Murray, 43 CaL 515. 

71. CaL Gwinn v. Goldman, 134 P. 
2d 915, 54 CaLApp.2d 393. 



51 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



The judgment must correspond with the plead- 
ings and proof with respect to the parties for and 
against whom it is rendered. 72 A judgment for 
plaintiff alone cannot be sustained where the com- 
plaint or proof shows that he is not the sole owner 
of the claim or property involved, but that others 
are joint owners thereof. 73 A judgment against 
a defendant concerning whom no allegations are 
made in the declaration or complaint, or against 
whom no relief or judgment is sought, ordinarily 



is unauthorized. 74 Where the complaint asks dif- 
ferent relief as against the different defendants, or 
alleges only a partial liability on the part of each 
of them, there cannot be a general judgment against 
one or all of them for the entire claim or demand 7 ^ 
A judgment against a principal may be proper on 
allegations and proof of acts of his agent; 76 but 
such a judgment cannot be rendered in the absence 
of any proof of the alleged agent's authority. 77 

Under appropriate pleadings and prayers, relief 



73. Ala. Milbra v. Sloss-Shefneld 
Steel & Iron Qo., 62 So. 176, 182 
Ala. 622, 46 L.R.A.,N.S,, 274. 

111. Russell v. Ortseifen, 54 N.E.2d 
612, 322 IlLApp. 695 Thomas v, 
Morris, 41 N.E.2d 990, 314 Ill.App. 
570. 

Iowa, O. H. Dunlap & Son v. Marek, 
209 N.W. 295. 

Ky. Universal Credit Co. v. Hib- 
bard, 117 S.W.2d 583, 273 Ky. -507 
Barnett v. Robinson, 79 S.W.2d 
699, 2-5S Ky. 2C5. 

Mont. Montana Auto Finance Cor- 
poration v. British & Federal Un- 
derwriters of Norwich Union Fire 
Ins. Soc., 232 P. 198, 72 Mont -69, 
36 A.L.R. 1495. 

N.J. Kienle v. MacFulton, Inc., 174 

A. 349, 12 N.J.Misc. 697. 

N.Y. Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 N. 

B. 93, 244 N.T. 182 Wheeler v. 
Standard Oil Co. of New York, 263 
N.Y.S. 272, 237 App.Div. 765, re- 
versed on other grounds IS 8 N.R 
148, 263 N.Y. 34. 

Or. Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949, 

157 Or. 2'80. 

Tex. Gillette Motor Transport Co. 
v. Whitfteld, Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 
290 Travelers Ins. Co. v. Key, 
Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 13 Hous- 
ton Oxygen Co. v. Davis, Civ.App., 
145 S.W.2d 300. reversed on other 
ground* 161 S.W.2d 474, 339 Tex. 1, 
140 A.L.R. 868- Corpus Juris cited 
la Eil wards v. Hatch, Civ.App., 106 
S.W.2d 741, 742 Superior Fire 
Ins. Co. v. C. S. Lee Grain & Eleva- 
tor Co., Civ.App., 261 S.W. 212 
Hardin v. Palm, Civ.App., 253 S. 
W. 94S Mullin v. Nash-El Paso 
Motor Co., Civ.App., 2*0 S.W. 472. 
Utah. Garner v. Anderson, 243 P. 

-496, 67 Utah 653. 

33 C.J. p 1154 note 31, p 1200 note 19. 
Impropiioty of Joint Judgment 

In an action against a bank, 
brought Jointly by two persons for 
whom money jhad been deposited in 
trust, where a judgment for plain- 
tiffs Jointly would not accord with 
the proof, the fact that the bank at 
the trial made no objection to the 
Joint action cannot enable the court 
to enter a Judgment which the law 
does not warrant. Ellison v. New 
Bedford Five Cents Sav. Bank, 130 
Mass. 48. 



Failure of oodefendant to file coun- 
terclaim 

Where only one of two codefend- 
ants has filed counterclaim. Judg- 
ment for both defendants on coun- 
terclaim is error as to defendant 
who did not file any counterclaim. 
C. I. T. Corporation v. Watkins, 181 
S.E. 270, 208 N.C. 448. 
"Hairs'* as Including "descendants" 

A pleading seeking to bring In 
"heirs" of certain persons as a class 
was held sufficient to make decree 
binding on descendants. Swoope T. 
Darrow, 188 So. 879, 37 Ala. 602. 
Xntervener 

In suit to recover on contract 
where there was no plea of inter- 
vention by an assignee who claimed 
a sum to be due him from plaintiffs, 
judgment in favor of plaintiffs and 
ordering defendants to pay inter- 
vener and deduct the amount from 
that due plaintiffs is unsupported by 
pleading. Home Ins. Co., New York, 
v. Privttt, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 
294, error dismissed. 

Exemplary damages against princi- 
pal or sureties 

In an action against the principal 
and sureties on a bond, a Judgment 
for exemplary damages against the 
principal only Is not erroneous be- 
cause the prayer asked such damag- 
es against principal and sureties, 
and the verdict was general, where 
such damages could not be had 
against the sureties. Emerson v 
Skidmore, 25 S.W. 671, 7 TexXJiv. 
App. 641. 

Municipal officials 

Where owner of land taken by city 
brought action for value thereof 
against city officials In their official 
capacity, without attempting to 
state cause of action against them 
as individuals, and city entered liti- 
gation as plaintiff in consolidated 
condemnation proceeding, Judgment 
against city and officers was held 
valid as against city, but void on 
face of Judgment roll in so far as 
purported to be against individual 
officers. City of Seminole v. Fields, 
43 P.2d 64, 172 OkL 167. 

73. CaL -Woodson v. Torgerson, 291 

P. 663, 108 Cal.App. 386. 
133 O.J. p 1154 note 33. 

120 



74. Ohio. Fourth & Central Trust 
Co. v. Aker Bros., 177 N.B. 602, S* 
Ohio App. 247. 

Tex. O'Brien v. Greene Production 
Co., Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 900 
Earnhardt Development Co. v. Ray, 
Civ.App., SI S.W.2d 732. 
33 C.J. p 11 ITS note 37. 
Judgment for or against one not par* 

ty see supra $28. 
Judgment against firm 

Where individuals of firm onljr 
were sued, and cause of action was 
not alleged, or relief sought, against 
firm. Judgment against the firm and 
individuals as partners, as well as 
against individuals, was unauthor* 
ized. Lingwiler v. Anderson, Tex* 
Civ.App., 270 S.W. 1052. 

Husband's Joinder in answer 

Where defendant's husband Joined 
in answering suit for injuries, it was 
held that Judgment might be ren- 
dered against him, although no relief 
was asked against him by plaintiff. 
Dickey v. Jackson, Tex.Civ,App., 
293 S.W. 5*84, reversed on other 
grounds, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 577. . 

75. Neb. Trester v. Pike, S3 N.W* 
676, 60 Neb. 510. 

33 C.J. p 1155 note 34. 

Belief soufflkt only la alternative 

Where Judgment against a defend- 
ant is sought only in the event it is 
found that he was not authorized to 
represent a codefendant, and it is 
found that he had such authority, 
judgment on such cause of action 
cannot be rendered against both de- 
fendants. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co. 
v. Spivey, Tex.Civ.App.. 255 S.W. 193, 
judgment modified on other grounds 
Com.App., Spivey y. Saner-Ragley 
Lumber Co., 284 S.W. 210. 

Judgment against single defendant 

held proper 

A complaint alleging performance 
of services for defendant and others 
at their request and an agreement 
of defendant to .pay therefor, sup- 
ports a Judgment against him alone. 
Delafleld v. San 'Francisco <fe S. M. 
R. Co., 40 P. 358, 5 Sal.tlnrep, 73L 

78. Wash. Reed v. National Gro- 
cery Co., 238 P. 890, 186 Wash. 7. 

77. La. Melde Tile Hoofing Co. v. 
Martinez, 139 So, 72, 19 LauApp. 91. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



51 



may be granted to one defendant as against a co- 
defendant ; 7 ^ but the court should not go beyond 
the pleadings to decree relief as between codefend- 
-ants. 79 

The principle of idem sonans may be invoked to 
obviate a variance in the names of the parties, 80 
and, where, on an inspection of the whole record, 
the identity of the parties named in the judgment 
and the pleading is clear, the apparent variance will 
be held to be a clerical misprision and immaterial, 
or at least amendable, 81 A variance may be 
waived. 82 

Ejectment.. A judgment in ejectment must con- 
form to the pleadings and proofs with respect to 
the parties involved. 83 This applies where the ac- 
tion is predicated on a joint demise, 84 and whether 
the action is the statutory or the common-law ac- 
tion of ejectment. 85 A judgment for all the plain- 
tiffs cannot be given where the proof shows title 
in some, 86 or title in part of the premises in one ; 87 
and it has been held that, if the proof does not 
show a joint interest in all who join as plaintiffs, 
the action must fail as to all, 88 although it has al- 
so been held that this rule does not apply where an 
equitable defense has been filed. 89 In some juris- 
dictions, however, a failure to prove title as to some 
of the plaintiffs will not prevent a recovery by the 



others in whom title is shown.** A judgment for 
plaintiffs may be predicated on a declaration al- 
leging that the lessors jointly and severally de-- 
mised, and proof of a tenancy in common, there 
being nothing impracticable in joint and several de- 
mises of the same land. 91 

A judgment may be rendered for or against one 
or more or all codefendants, in so far as the issues, 
proof, and record may justify it 92 

(2) Personal or Representative Capacity 

Judgment for or against a party ordinarily must be 
In the capacity, personal or representative, In which he 
sues or is sued. 

Generally the judgment should be for and against 
the parties in the capacity in which they sue and 
are sued. 93 Where an individual cause of action is 
alleged, but plaintiff describes himself as suing in 
a representative capacity, he may nevertheless re- 
cover in his individual right on proof of the indi- 
vidual cause of action alleged, the allegations as to 
his representative character being rejected as mere 
descriptio persons. 94 Where, however, plaintiff al- 
leges a cause of action accruing to him only in a 
representative capacity, and sues in such a capacity, 
proof of a cause of action belonging to him as an 
individual is a variance, amounting to a failure of 



78. S.C. Youmans v. Yownans, 121 
S.E. 674, 128 S.C. 31. 

Tex. McCart v. Scruggs, Civ.App., 
26 S.W.Sd 173, modified on other 
grounds, Com.App., '-28 S.W.2d 637. 

79. Idaho Van -Sicklin v. Mayfield 
Land & Livestock Co., 241 P. 1022, 
41 Idaho 673. 

S.D. Barry v. G. OU Wood .Farm 
Mortg. Co., 211 N.W. 688, 50 S.D. 
652. 

Tex. Galloway v. Moeser, Civ.App., 
*2 S.W.2d 1067 Douglas Oil Co. v. 
State (California Case), Civ.App., 
70 S.W.2d 452 Western Medical 
Arts Bldg. Corporation v. Bryan, 
Civ.App., 5 S.W:2d 862, error dis- 
missed San Antonio Southern Ry. 
Co. v. Burd, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 
1060, modified on other grounds, 
Com.App., Burd v. San Antonio 
Southern R. Co., -261 S.W. 1021. 
Absence of claim of adverse title 

A decree was held void In so far 
as it awarded rights in land to some 
defendants as against other defend- 
ants, where they had not claimed 
any title adverse to each other. 
Deming v. Nelson, 210 N.W. 726, 50 
S.D. 484. 

80. Iowa. Mallory v. Riggs, 30 N. 
W. S86, 76 Iowa 743. 

33 C.J. p 1201 note 20. 

81. OkL Corpus Juris quoted in 
Sorter v. Newton State Bank & 



Trust Co., OkL, 295 P. 209, 210, 

147 Okl. 136. 

Tex. Corpus Juris cited in Greene 
v. Elerding, Civ.App., 91 S.W. 
271, 272 Robinson v. Watkins, 
Civ.App., 271 S.W. 288. 

Wash. Wetzel v. Clise, 26 P. 161, 

148 Wash. 75. 

33 C.J. p 1201 note 21, p 1168 note 28 

Cb] (1). 

Entry of Judgment in correct corpo- 
rate name 

If corporation were known by an- 
other name than that set forth in 
pleadings, or were mistakenly named 
in pleadings, there being no corpo- 
ration of the name set forth, Judg- 
ment against corporation in its cor- 
rect name would be warranted. 
Wichita Falls & Southern Ry. Co. v. 
Foreman, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 
549. 

82. HL Edwards v. Warner, 111 
ULApp. -32. 

33 C.J. p 1201 note 2*2. 

83. Ga. Shaddix v. Watson, 61 S. 
E. 828, 130 Ga. 764. 

19 C.J. p 1209 note 20 [f]. 

94. U.S. Garrard v. Reynold, Ky., 4 

How. 123, 11 LuEd. 903. 
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52%. 

85. Ga. Callaway v. Irvin, 51 S.B. 

477, 123 Ga. 344. 
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52%. 

121 



86. Cal. Tormey v. Pierce, 42 CaL 
S3*. 

19 C.J. p 1217 notes 62%, 2%. 

87. Mich. Lynch v. Kirby, 36 Mich. 
238. 

SB. Ga. McQlamory v. McCormick, 

24 S.E. 941, 99 Ga. 14$. 
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52#. 

89. Ga. Milner v. Vandivere, 12 S* 
E. 879, 86 Ga. 540. 

90. 111. Whitham v. Ellsworth, 102 
N.E. 223, 259 lit 243. 

13 C.J. p 1217 note 52%. 

91. Ky. Courtney v. Shropshire, 3 
Litt. 265. 

19 C.J. p 1217 note 52*io. 

92. Ala. Simmons v. Sharpe, 42 <So. 
441, 148 Ala. 217. 

19 C.J. p 1217 note 55. 

93. U.S. Gonzalez v. Roman Cath- 
olic Archbishop of Manila, Phil. 
Islands, 50 S.Ct 5, 280 U.S. 1, 74 
L.Ed. 131. 

Minn. Briggs v. Kennedy Mayon- 
naise Products, 297 N.W. -842, 209 
Minn. 312. 

Tex. Rockhold v. Lucky Tiger Oil 
Co., Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 1046, error 
dismissed. 

33 O.J. p 1155 note 39. 

94. U.S. Newberry v. Robinson, C. 
C.N.Y,, 36 F. 841. 

33 C.J. p 1155- note 40. 



51 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



proof, and it has been held that he cannot recov- 
er, 95 Similarly, where plaintiff sues in his individu- 
1 al capacity and the proof shows a right to recover 
only in a representative capacity, it has been held 
that there is a fatal variance. 96 A defense good 
against plaintiff in his individual capacity is not 
necessarily a bar to a judgment for plaintiff in his 
representative capacity. 97 

A personal judgment against a defendant who is 
sued only in his official or representative capacity, 98 
or a judgment against one in his representative ca- 
pacity when he is sued only in his individual capac- 
ity, 99 is defective. Where the pleadings are ambig- 
uous as to the capacity in which plaintiff sues, or 
defendant is sued, the theory on which the case was 
tried controls the judgment. 1 

Executors and administrators. It has been held 
that, if an executor or administrator sues as such, 
he cannot recover in his individual right; 2 but 
there are also cases in which an individual recovery 
by one who sued as executor or administrator has 
been regarded as permissible. 8 If a person sues in- 
dividually, he cannot recover as executor or admin- 



istrator. 4 If an action is brought against a person 
individually, judgment cannot be rendered against 
him as the personal representative of another. 5 
Similarly, as a general rule, where one is sued as 
executor or administrator, no personal judgment 
may be rendered against him, 6 although there are 
cases in which it has been regarded as permissible 
to render a personal judgment against one so sued. 7 

A plaintiff cannot object to a decree because it 
was rendered against him in the name and capacity 
in which he sued. 8 Where a party is sued as per- 
sonal representative, any judgment in his favor 
should be in his representative, rather than in his 
individual, capacity. 9 

b. Property Affected 

A Judgment affecting property should be limited to 
that described In the pleadings and proof, and, accord- 
ing to some authorities, a Judgment affecting other 
property is void. 

A judgment affecting property should be limited 
to the property described in the pleadings, 10 and 
judgments affecting other property have been held 



96. 111. Stokes v. Riley, 11 N.E. 

877, 121 111. 166. 
33 CJ. p 1153 note 41. 

96. Mo.- Vaughan v. St Louis & S. 
F. R. -Co., 164 S.W. 144, 177 Mo. 
App. 155. 

33 C.J. p 1155 note 42. 

97. N.Y. Scranton v. Farmers' & 
Mechanics' Bank, 33 Barb. 527, af- 
firmed 24 N.T. 424. 

98. Cal. Reed v. Molony, 101 P.2d 
175, 38 Cal.App,2d 405. 

Mo. Baird v. National Health Foun- 
dation, 144 -S.W.2d 50, 235 Mo. 
App. 694. 

33 CJ. p 1155 note 44. 

99. Conn. Joseph v. Donovan, 164 
A. 498, 116 Conn. 160. 

33 C.J. p 1155 note 45. 

3^ U.S. Fortier v. New Orleans 

Nat Bank, La., 5 S.Ct. 234, 112 U. 

S. 439, 28 L.Ed. 764. 
33 C.J. P 1155 note 46. 

2. Cal. Rogers v. Schlotterback, 
138 P. 728, 167 Cal. 35. 

24 C.J. p 885 note 49. 

3. La.-JChildress v. Davis, 15 iLa. 
49*2. 

24 C.J. P 885 note 50, 33 C.J. P H'55 
note 40. 

4. Me. Hayes v. Rich, 64 A. 659, 
101 Me. 314, 11'5 Am.S.R. 314. 

24 C.J. P #85 note 51. 

& Ala. Singleton v, Gayle, * Port. 

270. 
24 C.J. p 885 note 52. 

. Neb. Burton v. Williams, 88 N. 

W. 765, 63 Neb. 431. 
24 C.J. p 885 note 53. 



7. Tenn. Braden v. Hollingsworth, 

$ Humphr. 19. 
24 C.J. p 88-6 notes 64, 55. 

a Vt. Sowles v. Sartwell, 56 A. 
282, 76 Vt. 70. 

9. La. Succession of Moore, App., 
193 So. 222. 

10. U.S. Baten v. Kirby Lumber 
Corporation, C.C.A.Tex., 103 F.2d 
272. 

Ala. Alford v. Rodgers, 6 So.2d 409, 

242 Ala. 370 Parker v. Duke, 157 

So. 43-6, 229 Ala. 361. 
Ariz.- Williams v. Earhart, 278 P. 

728, 34 Ariz. -565. 
Cal. Alpha Stores v. Croft, 140 P. 

2d 688, 60 Cal.App.2d 349 Judson 

v. Herrington, 150 P.2d 802, 55 Cal. 

App.2d 476. 
Ga. Tinsley v. Commercial Credit 

Co., 164 S.E. 454, 45 Ga.App. 297. 
Idaho. Nielson v. Garrett, 43 P.2d 

380, 55 Idaho 240. 
Mo. Pioneer Cooperage Co. v. Dil- 

lard, '59 S.W.2d 642, 332 Mo. 798 

Wilkinson v. Lieberman, 37 S.W. 

3d 6 ( 33, 327 Mo. 420 Garrison v. 

City of Ozark, App., 248 S.W. 975. 
Tex. Martin v. Abbott, Civ.App., 24 

S.W.2d 488 Stevenson v. Barrow, 

Civ.App., 285 S.W. 840, reversed on 

other grounds, Com. App., 291 S.W. 

1101 Holasek v. Jahek, Civ.App, 

244 S.W. 285. 
W.Va. George v. Male, 153 S.E. 507, 

109 W.Va, 222. 
19 C.J. p 1209 note 20 [a], [b] 33 C. 

J. p 1168 note 32 47 C.J. p 430 

note 6551 C.J. p 269 note 25 [c], 
[d]. 

122 



Judgments held proper 

(1) Where there was no question 
as to what land was in dispute and 
land was fully described in the de- 
cree covering land in controversy, 
decree was not erroneous because 
not in conformity with pleadings. 
Arnd v. Harrington, 2*87 N.W. 292, 
227 Iowa 43. 

(2) In action to establish title to 
strip of land between fence and al- 
leged true boundary line inside fence, 
a judgment embracing less land than 
that claimed in pleadings was prop- 
er, where land recovered was locat- 
ed precisely as contended for by 
plaintiffs' petition, except as respects 
width of strip. Humble Oil & Re- 
fining Co. v. Owings, Tex.Civ.App., 
128 S.W.2d 6-7. 

(3) A judgment providing for the 
return of certain tires was held prop- 
er under pleadings dealing with the 
"equipment" of a certain gasoline 
station. Haley v. Traeger, 268 P. 
459, 92 Cal. App. 360. 

(4) Where description of land in 
decree vesting title did not follow 
that in the bill, but included the 
tract in question and land could be 
ascertained, there was held to be a 
sufficient description. Gaylor v. 
Gaylor, 1 Tenn. App. 645. 

(5) Other cases. 

Ga.Cason v. United Realty & Auc- 
tion Co., in S.B. 161, 161 Ga, 374. 

Tex. Wells v. Laird, Civ.App., 57 
S.W.*2d 3*95, error refused Steven- 
son v. Barrow, Civ. App., 285 S.W. 
840, reversed on other grounds, 
Com.App., 291 S.W. 1101. 



49. C..J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



'51 



to be void 11 although as to this there is ajso author- ! 
ity to the contrary. 12 It has been held that 'the fact 
that a description in a judgment fixing the bounda- 
ries of land involved in a litigation differed from 
the description in the pleadings was immaterial 
where there was evidence to support the descrip- 
tion in the judgment. 13 

A judgment should also be supported by the proof 
as to the property involved, 14 and hence a judg- 
ment following a description in the complaint which 
is not supported by the evidence cannot stand. 16 

c. Quieting Title 

Actions to quiet title are governed by the general 
rules with respect to conformity of the judgment with 
the pleadings and proofs, including the rules as to the 
granting of affirmative relief to a defendant. 

The rule requiring the relief afforded by the judg- 
ment to conform to the case made out by the plead- 
ings and proofs has been applied in actions to quiet 



title. 16 It is error to grant a decree quieting plain- 
tiffs title on proof of facts showing merely a right 
to specific performance, 17 and, where the bill con- 
tains only statutory averments, relief cannot be 
granted on general principles of equity. 18 Under 
the broad provisions of some statutes, plaintiff may 
so frame his petition as to authorize either legal 
or equitable relief. 1 ^ 

Affirmative relief not authorized by the pleadings 
and proof cannot be granted to defendant, 20 and 
in some jurisdictions it has been held that the 
court cannot decree that defendant has the su- 
perior title where he files no cross complaint 21 
and does not pray for such relief; 22 but in others it 
has been held that defendant's title may be declared 
superior if the facts justify it, although he files no 
cross complaint or otherwise asks for such relief. 23 
If defendants set up equities and pray for judg- 
ment and for general relief, an award of affirmative 



11. Tenn. Central Sav. Bank v. 
Carpenter. 37 S.W. 278, 97 Tenn. 
4'37. 

33 C.J. p 1168 note S3. 

12. Tex. Williamson V. Wright, 1 
Tex.Unrep.Cas. 711. 

33 C.J. P 1169 note 34. 

13. Cal. Dreyer v. Cole, 292 P. 123, 
210 Cal. 3:39. 

14. 111. Osmonson v. Buck, 162 N. 
E. 142, 331 111. 25. 

Concession by party 

A judgment awarding plaintiff 
land to which he concedes he is mak- 
ing no claim, and to which defend- 
ant appears to have a better title, is 
erroneous. Hecker v. Bleish, 8 S. 
W.2d 1008, 319 Mo. 149. 

15. Neb. Cashing v. Conness, 95 N. 
W. 855, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 66-8. 

ia Cal. Baar v. Smith, 255 P. 827, 
201 Cal. 87 Bartholomae Oil Cor- 
poration v. Delaney, 296 P. 690, 
112 CaLAfcp. 314. 

Mo. Congregation B'Nai Abraham v. 

Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 323 Mo. 776. 

N.M. Otero v. Totl, 273 P. 917, 33 

N.M. 613. 
N.C. Johnston v, Johnston, 12 S. 

B.2d 248, 218 N.C. 706. 
Utah. Bolognese v. Anderson, 90 P. 
2d 275, 97 Utah 136 Bertolina v. 
Frates, 57 P.2d 346, 89 Utah 238. 
51 C.J. p 2*9 note 25 [a]-[g]. 
Jurisdiction*! facts 

Although defendant's occupancy of 
the land was not alleged in the 
pleadings, it was nevertheless juris- 
dictional, and the court having found 
as a fact that defendant was in acitu- 
al possession when the suit was 
commenced, the bill was properly 
dismissed. Dolph v. Norton, 123 N. 
W. 13, 158 Mich. 417. 



Taxes, penalties, and costs 

In action for possession of, and to 
Quiet title to, realty, portion of Judg- 
ment allowing personal recovery 
against defendant for accumulated 
taxes, penalties, and costs, an de- 
creeing lien against property, was 
held void where Issue as to such 
part of judgment was not raised by 
pleadings or evidence. Fuqua v. 
Watson, 46 P.2d 486. 172 Okl. 624. 

Cancellation of deed as cloud on ti- 
tle 

Where the clear purpose of a bill 
is to relieve plaintiff's land from the 
incubus of a mortgage foreclosure 
sale, allegations which show the in- 
validity of the sale as against plain- 
tiff, coupled with a prayer for gen- 
eral relief, are sufficient to war- 
rant cancellation of the deed as a 
cloud on title, although the special 
prayer was for redemption and re- 
conveyance to the mortgagor. Dixie 
Grain Co. v. Quinn, 61 So. 886, 181 
Ala. 208. 

TTnder statute authorizing- determin- 
ation. of adverse claims 

Where the complaint embraces ev- 
ery averment necessary to sustain 
an action to Quiet title under the 
general provisions of the -statute re- 
lating to such actions, a judgment 
quieting title is proper, although the 
action was brought under another 
statute authorizing an action to de- 
termine adverse claims by one in ad- 
verse possession of the property who 
has paid taxes thereon during a des- 
J4ro**d period^Bmst v. Tiel, 197 
P. U9, 1 CaLApp, 747. 



Judgments Held 
issues 

Cal. District Bond Co. v. Pollack, 
121 P.2d 7, 19 CaL2d 304* 

123 



o. Ebbs v. Neff, 30 S.W.2d 616, 

325 Mo. 1182. 
Mont Thomson v. Nygaard, 41 P.2d 

1, 98 Mont 529. 
Okl. -'Simmons v. Howard, 27-6 P. 

71*8, 136 OkL 118, 

17. Mo. Congregation B'Nai Abra- 
ham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 823 
Mo. 776. 

Utah. Hennefer v. Hays, 47 P. 90, 
14 Utah 324. 

18. Ala. First Ave. Coal & -Lum- 
ber Co. v. King, 69 So. 549, 193 
'Ala. 438 Fowler v. Alabama Iron 
& Steel Co., 45 So. 635, 154 Ala. 
497. 

19. Mo. Murphy v. Barren, 205 & 
W. 49, 275 Mo. 282. 

51 C.J. p 270 note 29. 

20. N.D. Brown v. "Comonow, 114 
N.W. 728, 17 N.D. 84. 

51 C.J. p 276 note 30. 

21. CaL Hungarian Hill Gravel 
Min. Co. v. Moses, 58 Cal. 168. 

Ky. Spradlin v. Patrick, 64 S.W. 
840, 23 Ky,L. 1156. 

22. Tex. State v. Black, 297 S.W. 
213, 118 Tex. 615, 53 A.L.R. 1181. 

51 C.J. P 276 note 32. 

23. Mich. Miller v. Steele, 109 N. 
W. 37, 14* Mich. 123. 

51 C.J. p 276 note 33. 
Belief "based on plaintiff's pleading 
Where the statute authorizes the 
court to determine the title and in- 
terests of all the parties, and plain- 
tiff's prayer asks that this be done, 
it is proper for the court, if title is 
found to be in defendant, so to de- 
tervtine, without any prayer on the 
tetter's part. Himmelberger-Harri- 
son Lumber Co. v. Jones, 119 S.W. 
366, 220 Mo. 19051 C.J. p 276 not* 
34. 



51 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



relief is proper, without a prayer for "affirmative 
relief in those terms. 24 

d. Other Applications 

The rules governing conformity of Judgments with 
the pleadings, Issues, and proofs have been applied In a 
great variety of cases, the propriety of the particular 
relief granted depending on all the facts and circum- 
stances. 

The rules with respect to the necessity that judg- 
ments conform to, and be sustained by, the plead- 
ings and proofs, the relief sought, and the issues, 
have been applied in numerous cases in addition to 



those already considered; and, following such rules, 
the relief granted under the circumstances has been 
held proper in actions or judgments for or relating 
to accounts or accounting, 26 annulment of mar- 
riage, 26 antenuptial agreements, 27 attorney's fees, 23 
bonds, 29 breach of marriage promise, 30 building 
contracts, 31 cancellation of instruments, 32 commis- 
sions, 33 deeds, 34 dower, 35 easements, 3 * ejectment, 3 * 
establishment or priority of liens, 38 executors and 
administrators, 39 foreclosure,^ improvements, 41 in- 



24. Tex. McCullough v. Rucker, 
115 S.W. 323, 53 Tex.Civ.A-pp. 89. 

25. Cal. Nelson v. Abraham, App., 
162 P.2d 333 Sly' v. Abbott, 264 
P. 507, 89 CaLApp. 209 Miller v. 
Superior Court of California in and 
for ILos Angeles County, 210 P. 
832, :59 CaLApp. 340. 

Ga. Grant v. Hart, 80 S.E.2d 271, 

197 Ga. 6-62. 
Mo. Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v. 

Mullins, App., 31 S.W.2d 86 Loge- 

man Mfg. Co. y. Logernan, App., 

298 S.W. 1040. 
Xex. Zimmerman v. Millan, Civ. 

App., 141 'S.W.2d 3-94 Samuels v. 

Finkelstein, Qiv.App., 25 S.W.2d 

923, error dismissed. 

26. CaL-JFigoni v. Figoni, 295 P. 
339, 211 Cal. 354. 

27. 111. Parker v. Gray, 148 N.B. 
323, 317 111. 468. 

Kan. Baldwin v. Baldwin, 98 P.2d 
614, 150 Kan. 507. 

28. Cal. Martin v. Pacific South 
west Royalties, 106 P.2d 443, 41 
Cal.App.2d 161. 

La, -Wild v. Standard General Real 
ty Co., App., 145 So. 58, affirmed 
149 'So. 114, 177 La. 664. 

Tex. Rychener v. McGuire, Civ 
App., 66 'S.W.'2d 418. 

29. Tex. I>e Zavala r. Scanlan 
Com.App., 65 S.W.2d 489. 

30. Tenn. Poster v. Andrews, 18 
S.W;2d 580. 

31. Cal. Karlik v. Peters, 288 P 
63, 106 CaLApp. 126. 

9 C.J. p 892 note 51. 

32. Cal. Empire Lease & Royalt 
Co. v. Jones, 8 P.2d 512, 121 Cal 
APp. 23. 

Ga. Cason v. United Realty & Auc 

tton Co., 131 S.B. 161, 161 Ga. 374 
Mich. Drinski v. Drinski, 15 N.W 

2d 714, 309 Mich. 479. 
Okl. Exchange Bank of Perry v 

Nichols, 164 P.2d 867. 
Tex. Sabens v. fiochruxn, dv.App 

292 S.^. 281. - ' 



Fraud as "actual" or "constructive" 
Where petition for cancellation of 
ease recited facts and prayed for a 
ecree declaring the lease to be il- 
egal and void because of fraud, and 
rdering cancellation thereof and 
or such other, further, and differ- 
nt relief as equity and justice 
might require, a holding that con- 
tructive fraud existed was within 
petition, although neither "actual" 
ior "constructive" was used in con- 
aection with charge of fraud. John- 
son v. Radio Station W O W, 14 N. 
W.2d '$66, 144 Neb. 406, reversed on 
other grounds 65 <S.Ct. 147-5, 32* IT. 
S. 120, 8'9 L.B?d. 2092, motion denied 
66 S.Ct 11. 
Inability to surrender stock 

Where a petition for the cancella- 
tion of stock contained a prayer for 
general relief, it authorized a judg- 
ment for the value of the stock 
which a stockholder was ordered to 
surrender for cancellation, but which 
le was unable to surrender because 
tie had transferred it to a brokerage 
. McCombs Producing & Refin- 
ing Co. V. Ogle, 254 S.W. 4'25, 200 Ky. 
208. 

33, Ark. Core v. Henley, 16 S.W.2d 
579, 179 Ark. 488. 

Conn. Nocera v. La Mattina, 145 A. 
271, 109 Conn. 5*89. 

Tex. Murchison v. Ballard, Civ. 
App., 17* S.W.2d 554, error re- 
fused Jones v. Bledsoe, Civ.App., 
293 S.W. 204. 



. Adams, 117 S.B. 

335, 30 Ga.App. 197. 
HI. Burroughs v. Mefforfl, 5-6 N.B. 

2d 845, 387 111. 461 Hayes v. Min- 

iter, 139 N.m 74, 308 111. 22. 
Mo. Presbyterian Orphanage of 

Missouri v. Fitterling, 114 S.W.2d 

1004, 342 Mo. 299 Mayberry v. 

Clark, 297 S.W. 39, 317 Mo. 442. 
rp ex . Green v. Duncan, CivJV.pp., 134 

S.W.2d 744. 

35(i Ark. Less v. Less, 249 S.W. 

583, 158 Ark. 25-5. 
36. 111. Stowell v. Prentiss, 154 N. 

El 120, 323 111. 309, 50 A.L.R. 584. 
Ky. Wilson v. Trent, 38 S.W.2d 429, 

23* Ky. 551. 

124 



37. Ariz. Keystone Copper Min. Co. 

v. Miller, 164 P.2d 603. 
Ky. Parkey v. Arthur, $3 S.W.2d 

921, 245 Ky. 525. 
j . Marsden v. Nipp, 30 S.W.23 77, 

525 Mo. 822. 
Application of rules with respect to 

parties in action of ejectment see 

supra subdivision a (1) of this 

section. 

5. Idaho. Gillette v. Oberholtzer, 

264 P. 229, 45 Idaho 571. 
Iowa. Holden v. VoeHcer, 293 N.W. 

32, 228 Iowa 589. 
Ky. Smith v. Sellers, 284 S.W. 1*34, 

215 Ky. 181. 

39. Cal. Tarien v. Katz, 1*5 P.2d 
493, 216 Cal. 5-54, 85 AL.R. 334. 

Ga. Sangster v. Toledo Mfg. Co., 1> 

S.B.2d 723, 193 Ga. 685. 
Mo.' Reed v. Tedford, App., 72 S. 

W.2d 207. 

2-4 C.J. p 884 notes 44 [a]-[e3. 
Personal or representative capacity 

see supra subdivision a (2) of 

this section. 

40. Ga. Ten-Fifty Ponce de Leon 
Co. v. Citizens' & Southern Nat. 
Bank, 153 S.B. 751, 170 Ga. 642. 

Tex Stoutz v. Amarillo Bank & 

Trust Co., Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 778, 

error dismissed 
Utah. Meissner v. Ogden, L. & 1. 

Ry. Co., 233 IP. 569, 65 Utah 1. 
Wash. Beadle v. Barta, 123 P.2d 

761, 13 Wash.2d 67. 
42 C.J. p 142 note 53 [fj P 143 note 

57 [a], [b]. 
Bights of purchaser at foreclosure 

Where there was an actual con- 
troversy before the court as to the 
rights of purchaser in property pur- 
chased at foreclosure sale, judgment 
declaring purchaser at foreclosure 
sale to be the owner of the property 
subject only to right of redemption, 
and that his title thereto subject 
to such right be Quieted against any 
and all claims of perseas claiming 
property by adverse possession, was 
proper.-HSnyder v. Pine Grove Lum- 
ber Co., 105 P.2d 369, 40 Cal.App.2d 
660. 



1. Mo. Sutton v. Anderson, 31 S. 
W.2d 10*26, (326 Mo. 804. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



51 



junctive relief, 42 insurance, 4 ^ leases or rents, 44 
notes, 4 * oil or gas leases or royalties, 46 partner- 
ships, 47 partition, 4 * patents, 49 personal injuries, 50 



quo warranto, 51 rescission, 5 ^ services rendered, 53 
specific performance, 54 trespass, 55 trusts, 56 and oth- 
er matters. 57 



42. Cal. Knox v. Wolfe, App., 167 
P.2d 3 Sharp v. Big Jim Mines, 
103 P.2d 430, 39 Cal.App.2d 435. 

Mo. Meder v. Wilson, App., 192 S. 

W.2d 606. 
TTse of private way 

Decree enjoining use of a private 
way over defendants' land connect- 
ing plaintiffs' tracts was not beyond 
pleading of injunction suit where 
decree only determined plaintiffs' ti- 
tle to an easement and not title to 
a fee. Fassold v. Schamfcurg. 166 
S.W.2d 571, i350 Mo. 464. 

43. Kan. Dobrauc v. Concordia 
Fire Ins. Co., 10 P.2d 875, 135 
Kan. 297. 

La. Richmond v. New York Life 

Ins. Co., App., 25 So.2d 94. 
Mo. Homan v. Employers Reinsur- 
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.Sd 289, 
845 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163 Nick 
v. Travelers Ins. Co., App., 185 
S.W.2d 326 De Mott v. Great 
American Ins. Co. of New York, 
181 S.W.2d 64, 234 Mo.App. 31. 
N.Y. Borszewski v. Bukowski, 260 

N.Y.S. 643, 145 Misc. 680. 
Tex. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. 
Trice, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 356, er- 
ror dismissed Northern Assur. 
Co. v. Herd, Civ.App.. 27* S.W. 884. 
33 C.J. p 144 note 83 [a]. 
Change of beneficiary 

Allegation that change of benefi- 
ciary of life policy was inequitable, 
unjust, voidable, and ought to be set 
aside was held sufficient to support 
decree for first beneficiary as against 
contention that decree did not con- 
form to pleadings because no fraud 
was found. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. 
Gebo, 170 A. 917, 106 Vt 155. 

44. La. Chambers v. Vega, 137 So. 
879, 18 La.App. 756. 

N.Y. Longo v. Sparano, 196 N.Y.&. 

344, 119 Misc. 402. 
S.C. Stackhouse v. (Pure Oil Co., 180 

S.E. 188, 176 6.C. 318. 

45. Iowa. Iowa State Sav. Bank of 
Malvern v. Young, 244 N.W. 271, 
214 Iowa 1287, 84 A.L.R. 1400, 
rehearing denied 245 N.W. 864, 84 
A.L.R. 1400. 

Kan. Illinois Life Ins. Co. v* 
Young, 235 P. 104, 118 Kan. 308, 
certiorari denied Young v. Still- 
well, 46 S.Ct 21, 269 U.S. 560, 70 
L.Ed. 412. 

Ky. Board of Education of Pulaski 
County v. Nelson, 88 S.W.ifd 17, 
261 Ky. 466. 

Or. Boyce v. Toke Point Oyster Co., 
Consol., 25 P.2d 930, 145 Or. 114. 

Tex. Dashiel v. LOtt, Com.App., 243 
S.W. 1072. 

Alternative prayer for balance on 

open account 
In action on notes, where evidence 



showed payment of notes but exist- 
ence of undisputed balance due 
payee on open account, payee was 
entitled to judgment for balance on 
open account under amended com- 
plaint praying for such relief in al- 
ternative. Federal Rubber Co. v. M. 
M. 5Stewart Co., 41 P.2d 158, 180 
Wash. 625. 

mdividtifll obligation of codef endant 
Where petition in action against 
defendants, as partners, on a note 
executed by codef endant and payable 
to plaintiff, copied the note in hsec 
verba and contained prayer for gen- 
eral relief, and petition showed on 
its face that note as drawn was an 
individual obligation of codefendant, 
petition was sufficient to support a 
judgment against codefendant. 
Poynor v . Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 135 
S.W.2d 722. 

46. Kan. Flitch v. Boyle, 89 (P.2d 
909, 0.49 Kan. 884 McDermed v. 
Ackley, 44 P.2d 27-4, 141 Kan. 818. 

Tex. Caldwell-Guadalupe. Pick-Up 
Stations v. Gregg, Civ.App., 276 <3, 
W. 3-42, modified on other grounds 
Gregg v. Caldwell-Guadalupe Pick- 
Up Stations, Com. App., 286 S.W. 
1083. 

47. La. Blanchard v. Patterson, 
119 So. 902, 9 La.App. 706. 

48. Ky. Howard v. Carmichael, 55 
S.W.2d 852, 237 Ky. 462. 

Mo. Virgin v. Kennedy, 32 S.W.2d 

91, 326 Mo. 400. 
Tex. Bowles v. Bryan, Civ. App., 277 

S.W. 760. 

49. U.S. General Motors Corpora- 
tion v. Leer Auto Supply Co., C. 
C.A.N.Y., 60 F.2d 902. 

50. Ala. City of Birmingham v. 
Smith, 163 So. 611, 231 Ala. 95. 

Ky. Harmon v. Rose, 32 -S.W.2d 67, 

235 Ky. 701. 
Tex. Caddo Warehouse & Transfer 

Co. v. Riley, Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 

137, error dismissed. 

51. Fla. City of Auburndale v. 
State ex reL Landls, 184 So. 787, 
135 Fla. 172. 

52. La. Houston-Long Co. v. Fair- 
cloth, 137 So. 594, 18 La.App. 423, 
Judgment fiadag damages to ven- 
dor for failure of consideration may 
be entered under complaint for re- 
scission and evidence showing value 
of property and consideration. Mas- 
ero v. Bessolo, 262 P. 61, 87 Cal. 
App. 262. 

53. Cal. Maxwell v. Jimeno, 265 P. 
885, 89 CaLApp. 612 Rosener v. 
Hanlon Dry Bock & Shipbuilding 
Co., 236 (P. 183, 71 CaLApp. 767. 

La. McCook v. Comegys, 125 So. 

134, 169 La, 312. 
Tex. Reymershotter v. Ray, Civ. 

125 



App., 85 S.W.2d 1102, error re- 
fused. 

54. Cal. Roark v. Southern Trust 
& Commerce Bank, 288 (P. 110, 105 
CaLApp. 521. 

Wis. In re Shinoe's Estate. 250 N. 

W. 505, 212 Wis. 481. 
Option to purchase 

A Judgment decreeing specific per- 
formance of tan option to purchase 
contained in a lease was not void 
merely because complaint failed spe- 
cifically to allege that option speci- 
fied adequate consideration or that 
the contract was fair, where issue 
of adequacy was conceded by the 
conduct of defendants at the trial 
and findings of adequacy and fair- 
ness were supported by evidence. 
Drullinger v. Erskine, CaLApp., 16& 
P.2d 48. 

55. Ky. Siler v. Cannon, 130 S.W. 
2d 742, 279 Ky. 328 Chapman v. 
Majestic Collieries Co., 288 S.W. 
299, 216 Ky. 652. 

56. Cal. Webb v. Vercoe, 258 P. 
1099, 201 Cal. 754, 54 A.L.R. 1200. 

57. TLS. Municipal Excavator Co. 
v. Siedhoff, C.OA.Kan., 15 F.2d 
10. 

Ariz. Betts v. Lightning Delivery 
Co., 22 P.2d 827, 42 Ariz. 105. 

Cal. Estrin v. Superior Court in and 
for Sacramento County, 96 F.2d 
340, 14 Cal.2d 670 (Peak v. Repub- 
lic Truck Sales Corporation, 230 P. 
948, 194 Cal. -782 Wiley v. 
Wright, 79 P.2d 196, 26 CaLApp* 
2d 305 Burd v. Downing, 213 P. 
287, 60 CaLApp. 493. 

Conn. Heneault v. Papas, 121 A. 273, 
99 Conn. 164. 

Ga. Phillips v. Whelchel, 170 S.E. 
480, 177 Ga. 489 Stover v. Atlan- 
tic Ice & Coal Corporation, 125 S.E. 
837, 159 Gku 357 Powell v. Black- 
stock, 13 S.E.2d 503, 6'4 Ga.App. 
442. 

Idaho.^-Angel v. Mellen, 285 (P. 461, 
48 Idaho 750. 

HL Johnson v. Watson, 33 N.E.2S 
130, .309 IlLApp. 440 Martin J. 
Hecht, Inc., v. Steigerwald, 24 N. 
E.2d 394, 302 IlLApp. 556. 

Ind. Hosanna v. Odishoo, 193 NJ3L 
599, 208 Ind. 132, rehearing denied 
195 N.E. 72, 208 Ind. 132 Wag- 
goner v. Honey, 169 N.BL 349, 91 
Ind.App. $1. 

Ky. Ben Humplch ISand Co. v 
Moore, 69 S.W.2d 396, 253 Ky. 
667 Consolidation Coal Co. v. 
Riddle, 248 S.W. 530, 198 Ky. 256. 

La. Sanders De Hart v. Continental 
Land & Pur Co., 17 So.2d 827, 205 
La. 569. 

Mass. Gallup v. Barton, 47 N.E.2d 
921, 313 Mass. -379. 

Mich. Wesorick v. Winans, 269 N. 
W. 609, 277 Mich. 589 Hogan v. 



I 51 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



On the other hand, following the rules with re- 
spect to conformity of judgments with the plead- 
ings, proofs, and issues, particular relief has been 
held improper in actions or judgments for or re- 



lating to accounting, 58 adverse possession, 59 attor- 
neys' fees, 60 cancellation of instruments, 61 checks, 62 
commissions, 6 ^ condemnation of property, 6 * conver- 
sion, 65 deeds and conveyances, 66 ejectment, 67 exec- 



Whltcomb, 206 N.W. 328, 233 Mich. 

403. 
Minn. Child v. "Washed Sand & 

Gravel Co., 233 N.W. 586, 181 

Minn. 559. 
Mo. Timmonds v. Wilbur, 260 S.W. 

1004 Fielder v. Fielder, App., 6 

S.W.2d 968 Sanders v. "Sheets, 

App., 287 S.W. 1069 Menefee v. 

Scally, App., 247 S.W. 259. 
Okl. Cusa'ck v. McMasters, 279 P. 

329, tt<37 Okl. 278. 
S.C. In re Sugg's Estate. 51 S.B. 

263, 71 S.C. 439. 
Utah. Jeffries v. Third Judicial 

Dist. Court of Salt Lake County, 

63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah 525. 
Wash. Robinson v. Puget Electric 

Welding Co., 299 P. 405, 162 Wash. 

626. 

33 C.J. p 1168 note 28 [a] (1), [b]. 
Reformation 

It has been held that reformation 
need not have been asked for spe- 
cifically in the pleading to permit 
the court to enforce a contract as 
.actually made, although not in a,c- 
cordance with a copy attacked as 
fraudulent. Hornick v. Union Pac. 
R. Co., 118 P. 60, 85 Kan. 568, 38 
X,.R.A.,N.S., 826, Ann.Cas.l913A 208. 

S8. Conn. "Steinmetz v. Steinmetz, 
7 A.2d 915, 125 Conn. 663. 

Fla. Garden 'Suburbs Golf & Coun- 
try Club v. iPruitt, 24 So.Sd 898, 

Mo.-^Palnier v. -Marshall, App., 24 
S.W.2d 229. 

N.Y. Hauenstein v. Fisher, 34 N.Y. 
S.2d 902, 264 App.Div. 825 Clark- 
son v. Lusher, 5 N.Y.S.2d 631, 255 
App.Div. 705, resettled In re Lush- 
ex's Will, 7 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 255 
App.Div. 860. 

Okl. Bishop v. Franks, 107 P.2d 358, 

188 oki. iae. 

Profit from resale 

Where, at the time a suit against 
.a company and some of its stock- 
holders for accounting was Institut- 
ed, erne defendant had not yet ac- 
quired a deed of trust to the cor- 
poration's property, and no supple- 
mental bill was filed, it could not 
Tiave been contemplated by the 
pleadings that the holder of the 
trust deed should be reauired to ac- 
count for any profit from resale 
.after foreclosure, and a Judgmen^ 
requiring him to so account was 
without the scope of the pleadings 
and void. Lewis v. School, Mo.App. 
244 .S.W. 90. 
[Personal Judgment against corporate 
director 

Where complaint by stockholders 
^alleged that director flailed to ac 
count for proceeds of stock and ap- 
propriated other money of corpora- 



tion and prayed an accounting, per- 
sonal judgment against director ex- 
ceeded relief prayed for. Angel v. 
Mellen, 285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750. 
Claim not referred to in complaint 

In action for accounting by land- 
owner on contract for building hous- 
es, judgment in-eluding amount bas- 
ed on claim not referred to in com- 
plaint could not be sustained. Aus- 
tin v. Harry E. Jones, Inc., 44 P. 
2d 667, 6 Cal.App.2d 493. 

59. Tex. Stevenson v. Barrow, Civ. 
App., 265 S.W. 602. 

60. Cal. Swanson v. Hempstead, 
149 P.2d 404, 64 Cal.App.2d 681. 

Tex. Thompson v. Kleinman, Civ. 
App., 259 S.W. 593. 

61. Ala. mith v. Smith, 114 So. 
192, 216 Ala. 570. 

Ga, Land Development Corporation 
v Union Trust Co. of Maryland, 
180 S.E. 836, 180 Ga. 785 De 
Loach v. (Purcell, 145 S.E. 424, 
166 Ga, 562. 

. Denney v. Peters, 10 N.E.2d 
754, 104 Ind.App. 504. 
y. In-ez Deposit Bank v. Pinson, 
122 S.W.2d 1031, 276 Ky. 84. 
La. Switzer v. Driscoll, App., 183 

So. 57. 
Mo. McKay v. Snider, 190 S.W.2d 

886. 

Tex. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank 
v. King, Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 245, 
error refused Home Ben. Ass'n 
v. Allee, Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 417 
-Armstrong v. Murray Tool & 
Supply Co., Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 
1101. 
Bar of future action 

A recital In a Judgment denying 
plaintiff's claim for forfeiture and 
cancellation of lease that it should 
not be a bar to any future action 
for damages or specific performance, 
being an adjudication of a matter 
not presented by the pleadings, is 
erroneous. Masterson v. Amarillo 
Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W. 908 
Money damages held improper 

Where wife, prior to divorce, con- 
tracted with husband and executed 
deed of community property to him 
and after divorce Instituted action 
to annul contract and deed for fraud 
a judgment awarding plaintiff mon- 
ey damages and directing defendan 1 
to pay plaintiff support money for 
child was void, as without the Is- 
sues. Stanley v. McKenzie, 240 P 
103)3, 29 Ariz. 288. 
Cancellation not sought 

Where both parties to suit sough 
construction and specific perform- 
ance of contract, and neither at 
tacked its validity nor sought its 
cancellation, court erred In cancel 

126 



ng It. Kentucky &. West Virginia 
>ower Co. v. Gilllam, 276 S.W. 983, 

210 Ky. 820. 

Establishment and foreclosure o* 



In suit to cancel purported deed 
on ground it was In fact a mort- 
gage, that part of judgment which 
fixed a tax lien and foreclosed it 
and foreclosed a vendor's Item, was 
erroneous, where neither party 
sought the fixing of tax lien or fore- 
closure of tax lien and vendor's lien. 
Duncan v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 
113 S.Wj2d 656, error dismissed, 

62. Mo. Massey-Harris Harvester 
Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of 
Kansas City, 48 S.W.2d 158, 226 
Mo.App. 916. 

Tex. Street v. Cunningham, Civ. 

App., 156 S.W.2d 541. 
notice of dishonor 

Judgment based on holding that 
failure to give notice of dishonor of 
checks was fatal to recovery was 
properly reversed, where no plea 
raised question of discharge by flail- 
ure to give notice of dishonor. 
Comer v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 283 
S.W. 307. 

63. Tex. McClory v. Schneider, 
Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 738, error dis- 
missed Smyth v. Conner, Civ. 
App., 280 S.W. 600 John Christ- 
ensen & Co. v. McNeil, Civ.App., 
251 S.W. 351. 

64. Ky. City of Owingsville v. TJ1- 
ery, 86 S.W.2d 706, 260 Ky. 792. 

65. Tex. Lewis v. Gamble, Civ. 
App., 113 S.W.2d 659 Meador v. 
Wagner, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 794, 
error dismissed. 

66. R.L Nelson v. Streeter, 13 A. 
2d 256, 65 R.'I. 1*3. 

Tex. Long v. McCoy, Civ.App., 294 
S.W. 6-33, affirmed McCoy v. Long, 
Com.App., 15 -S.W.2d 234, rehear- 
ing denied 17 S.W.2d 783. 
Absence of interest in land 

Where only issues before court 
were existence of alleged indebted- 
ness and whether quitclaim deed 
was intended as mortgage, portion 
of judgment adjudging that plaintiff 
had no Interest whatever in land 
was held void. State ex rel. Shull 
v. Moore, 27 P.2d 1048, 167 Okl. 28. 

67. Mo. Riley v. La 'Font, 174 S.W. 
2d 857 Brown v. Wilson, 155 S.W. 
2d 176, 348 Mo. 658. 

19 C.J. P 1209 note 20 Dc]-[e], p 1240 

note 19 [a]. 
Improvements 

Adjudication that, defendant to 
ejectment is entitled to nothing for 
improvements is erroneous, where 
no such issue is made by pleadings. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



51 



utors and administrators, 68 fixtures, 69 foreclosure, 70 
foreign judgments, 71 forfeiture, gifts, guaran- 
ties, 74 injunctive relief, 75 insurance, 76 interplead- 



er, 77 leases or rents, 78 notes, partition, 80 partner- 
ships, 81 personal injuries, 82 quo warrantors receiv- 



Lester v. Tyler, Mo., 69 S.W.2d 
633. 

68. Ky. Stlmson's Ex'x v. Tharp, 
144 S.W.2d 1031, 284 Ky. 389. 

24 C.J. p 884 note 44 [a]. 

Personal or representative capacity 

see supra subdivision a (2) of 

this section. 

69. Ky. Tabor v. Tabor, 280 S.W. 
1S4, 213 Ky. 312. 

70. N.Y. Brockport Nat. Bank v. 
Webaco Oil Co., 12 N.T.S.2d 65-2, 
257 App.Div. 68, reargument de- 
nied 14 N.Y.S.2d 495, 257 App.Div. 
1043. 

N.C.-- Richardson v. Satterwhite, 150 

$.E. 116, 197 N.C. 609. 
Ohio. Lebanon Production Credit 

Ass'n v. Feldhaus, App., 34 N.E.2d 

463. 
Tex. Smith v. Jaggers, Civ.App.. 16 

S.W.2d 9ff9, error dismissed. 
Vt Freedley v. Edwin Shuttleworth 

Co., 130 A. 691, 99 Vt. 25. 
33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b] (1), [e] 

42 C.J. p 142 notes 48, 53 [c], 

[e]. 
Extent of interest foreclosed 

In action to foreclose vendor's 
lien where only evidence of defend- 
ant's interest was in deed from 
plaintiff to defendant, Judgment 
foreclosing an interest less than de- 
scribed in deed was error. Smith v. 
Totton, Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 1019. af- 
firmed Totton v. -Smith, 113 S.W.2d 
517, 131 Tex. 219. 
TL Oal. Morrow v. Morrow, 105 P. 

2d 129, 40 Cal.App.2d 474. 
7S. 111. Penkala v. Tomczyk, 148 

N.E. 64, 317 111. 356. 
7a Mo. Riney v. Riney, App., 117 
S.W.2d 698. . 



74. La. Exchange Nat Bank of 
Shreveport v. Holomon Bros., 123 
So. 603, 168 La. 870. 

75. Cal. Sharp v. Big Jim Mines, 
103 P.2d 430, 39 Cal.App.2d 435. 

Idaho. Boise Street Car Co. v. Van 

Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 502. 
Mich. Ottney v. Taylor, 13 N.W.2d 

280, 308 Mich. 252. 
Mo Finley v. -Smith, 178 S.W.2d 

326, 552 Mo. 465 Fugel v. Becker, 

2 S.W.2d 743. 
Neb. Hallgren v. Williams, 20 N. 

W.2d 499. 
Pa. Ebur v. Alloy Metal Wire Co., 

155 A. 280, 304 Pa. 177. 
Vacation of Judgment 

In suit, to enjoin enforcement of 
Judgment, court's attempt to vacate 
Judgment was held nugatory, since 
it was unauthorized by pleadings. 
Baria v. Taylor, 57 IS.W.2d 858. 
Personal Judgment; order of ale 

In suit to restrain sale under trust 
deed, judgment against mortgagor 



personally and ordering sale was 
held not warranted under pleadings. 
Farm *& Home Savings & Loan 
Ass'n of Missouri v. Muhl, Tex.Civ. 
App., 37 S.W.2d 516, error refused. 
76. Ky. London & Provincial Ma- 
rine & Fire Ins. Co. of London, 
England, v. Mullins. 95 S.W.2d 588, 
264 Ky. 780 Fidelity Mut. Life 
Ins. Co. v. Hembree, 41 S.W.2d 649, 
240 Ky. 97. 

Mo. Smith v. Smith, App., 192 S. 
W.2d 691, followed in 192 S.W.2d 
700. 

N.J.~^Magliano v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 34 A.2d 296, 21 N.J.Misc. 
394. 

Tex. Drane v. Jefferson Standard 
Life Ins. Co., 161 S.W.2d 1057, 
139 Tex 101 Home Ins. Co. v. 
Scott, Civ-App., 152 S.W.2d 413, 
error dismissed Snyder N Local 
Mut Life Ass'n, Group One, v. Le- 
mond, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 829, 
error refused National Aid Life 
Ass'n v. Bailey, Civ.App., 54 S.W. 
2d 206 Fidelity Union Fire Ins. 
Co. v. Barnes, Civ.App., 293 S.W. 
279. 

Wis. Schmidt v. La Salle Fire Ins. 
Co. of New Orleans, 245 N.W. 702, 
209 Wis. 576. 

33 C.J. P 1139 note 52 [b] (3), P 
1168 note 28 [c] 57 C.J. P 656 
note 13. 
Disability 

Where an accident policy provides 
indemnity for partial and total dis- 
ability, if insured sues for the in- 
demnity payable for a total disabil- 
ity he cannot, in the same action, 
recover indemnity for a partial disa- 
bility which succeeded his total dis- 
ability. Rayburn v. Pennsylvania 
Casualty Co., 54 S.E. 283, 1-41 N.C. 
425. 



Pa. Normile v. Martell, 96 Pa.Super. 

139. 
Tex. Wafford v. Branch, Com.App. 

267 S.W. 260 Gulf Refining Co. T. 

Smith, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 155. 



Fraud 

Where issue of fraud was irrele- 
vant because not pleaded, finding 
thereon for insurer sued for pre- 
miums would not support Judgment 
for insurer. American Nat Ins. Co. 
v. Villegas, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 
1109. 



77, Cal. Van Orden v. Golden West 
Credit & Adjustment Co., 9 P.2d 
572, 122 CaLApp. 132. 

78. Ky. Key v. Hays, 166 S.W.2d 
850, 292 Ky. 423. 

La. Harper v. Sid iSimmons Drill- 

ing Co., 114 So. 647, 164 La. 767. 
H-e. Bemis v. Bradley, 133 A. 593, 

126 Me. 462, 69 A.L.R. 1399. 
Mo. Dreckshfcge v. Dreckshage, 176 

S.W.2d 7, 352 Mo. 78 McCaskey 

v. Duffley, 78 S.W.2d 141, 229 Mo. 

App. 289. 
N'T. Kilmer Park Const Co. v. 

Lehrer, 270 N.Y.S. 156, 150 Misc. 

673. 

127 



In action against lessor and les- 
see for damages to nearby property, 
lessor was not entitled to Judgment 
over against lessee on ground that 
lease contained an indemnification 
clause in its favor, where the plead- 
ings raised no such issue. Boyle v. 
Pennsylvania R. Co., 31 A.2d 89. 34* 
Pa. 602. 

79. Ky. Beaver Petroleum Corpo- 
ration v. ,Whitney, 278 S.W. 565, 
212 Ky. 222. 
La. W. J. & C. Sherrouse v. Phe- 

nix, 128 So. 536, 14 La.App. 629. 
Tex. Chastain v. Gilbert, Civ.App., 
145 iS.W.2d 938 Butler v. Price, 
Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 301 Metropo- 
lis Co. v. Texas Publication House, 
Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 403 Stack v. 
Ellis, Civ.App., 2-91 S.W. 919 
Standard Motor Co. v. Wittman, 
Civ.App., 271 S.W. 186 Blanken- 
beckler v. Kuykendall, Civ.App., 
256 S.W. 323. 
Material alteration 

Where notes were rendered voia 
by material alteration by payee, 
Judgment in amount of notes was 
held erroneous, since there was no- 
pleading or claim based on original 
obligation evidenced by the notes. 
Jones v. Jones, 71 S.W.2d 999, 25-4 
Ky. 475. 

&, Qa. Hatton v. Johnson, 121 S 
E. 404, 157 Ga. 313. 
Tex. Johnson v. Bussey. Civ.App... 
95 S.W.2d 990, error refused Se- 
curity Realty & Development Co- 
v. Jenkins, Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 999- 
Vanlandingham v. Terry, Clw 
.App., 293 S.W. 252. 
47 C.J. p 430 note 69. 
31. Mo. McCrosky V. Burnham r 
App., 282 S.W. 158. 
Personal Judgment against man- 
ager of partnership was unauthor- 
ized, where complaint did not allege 
that he was a partner or that he had 
any interest in business and asked, 
for no relief against him except 
that any interest he might have- 
should be foreclosed. State ex rel- 
Yeatch v. Franklin, 98'CP.2d 724. 163 
Or. 500. 



82. Tex. St. Louis, B. & M. Ry- 
Co. v. (Price. Civ.App., 244 S.W- 
642, affirmed, ConLApp., 269 -S.W- 
422. . 

83. Corporate nature of body 

A Judgment in QUO warranto can- 
not be sustained where it is againat 
respondents as officers of an unin- 



51 



JUDGMENTS. 



crs, 84 recovery of purchase price of property, 85 re- 
plevin, 86 rescission, 87 services rendered, 88 specific 
performance, 89 statutory penalties, 90 taxes or as- 
sessments, 91 trespass, 92 trusts, 98 wages and penal- 
ties, 94 workmen's compensation, 96 and other mat- 
ters.9 



52. 



49 C.J.S, 
Nature and Form of Action 



In general the Judgment is limited by the nature of 
the action; but In code states, where the common- 1 aw 
forms of pleading have been abolished, the form or 
name of the action does not control the relief which may 
be granted. 

In general the scope of the judgment is limited 
by the nature or character of the action. 9 ? At 



corporated body and the issue 
raised by the pleadings is whether 
the relators are entitled to the offl 
ces in an incorporated body which 
are claimed and held by respondents 
Commonwealth v. Grim, 9*9 A. 166 
255 Pa. 40. 

84. Tex. Commercial Standard Ins 
Co. v. Moeller. Civ.App., 78 S.W 
2d 2 83. 

85. Cal. -Young v. !Lial, 17 P.2d 
170, 128 Cal.App. 246. 

Ga: Whitten v. McMillan, 128 S.B 

211, 34 tauApp. 33. 
La. Stafford v. Tolmas Realty Co. 
App., 1-46 So. 61 Jackson v. Har- 
ris, 1S6 So. 166, 18 La.App. 484, 
reinstated 137 60. 655, 18 La.App, 
484. 

Tex. Bancroft v. Brown, Civ.App, 

285 fl.W. 206 Holloway v. Miller, 

Civ.App., 272 S.W. 562. 

Return of property 

In an action for the balance due 
on the purchase price of property in 
which defendant asks only for dam- 
ages, or for a return of payments 
made, and in which the only issue 
is whether there should be a money 
Judgment in favor of one party 
against the other, a money Judgment 
for defendant coupled with an ad- 
judication that the property be re- 
turned to plaintiff is improper.- 
Cresci v. Gandy, 124 A, 68, 99 N.J. 
Law 417 Union Garage Co. v. Wil- 
ner, 120 A. 4, 98 N.J.Law 441. 
Balance due seller 

In seller's action for purchase 
price, verdict for buyer on his coun- 
terclaim for fraud was unwarranted, 
where, if utmost amount shown as 
damages were subtracted from price 
remaining unpaid, there would still 
be a remainder in seller's favor. 
Gross v. Reiners, 124 A. 811, 100 
Conti. 732. 

86. Tenn. Sartain v. Dixie Coal & 
Iron Co., 266 S.W. 313, 150 Tenn. 
633. 

33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b] (2), (4). 

87. Tex. Bailey v. Mann, Civ.App., 
248 S.W. 469. 

88. Tex. Burnell v. -Schmidt, Civ. 
App., 104 S.W.2d 551 Barnhart 
Mercantile Co. v. Bengal, Civ. App., 
77 S.W.2d 295. 

89. La. Derbes v. Rogers, 110 So. 
84, 162 La. 49. 

90. Tex. Jennings Y Texas Farm 
Mortgage Co., 80 S.W.2d 931, 124 
Tex. 593 Gibson T. Hicks, Civ. 



A.pp., 47 S.W.2d 691, error refused 
National Casualty Co. v. Ma- 
honey, Civ.App., 296 S.W. 335. 

91. TLS3. Degener v. Anderson, C.C. 
A.N.Y., 77 F.2d 85-9. 

La. State ex rel. Porterie v. Gulf, 

Mobile & Northern R. Co., -184 So. 

711, 191 La. 163. 
Mo. State ex rel. Kansas City v. 

School Dist. of Kansas City, 62 

S.W.2d 813, 3(3 Mo. 288. 
Tex Ostrom v. State, Civ.App., 88 

S.W.2d 1084. 

92. La. Bruning v. City of New 
Orleans, 115 So. 733, 165 La. 511. 

Tex. Dalton v. Davis, Com.App., 1 
S.W.2d -571 Martin v. Grogan- 
Cochran Lumber Co., Civ. App., 176 
S.W.2d 780 First State Bank in 
Caldwell v. Stubbs, Civ.App., 48 S. 
W.2d 446. 

93. Cal. Juranek v. Juranek, 84 P. 
2d 195, 29 Cal.App.2d 276. 

Conn. Waterbury Trust Co. v. Por- 
ter, 38 A.2d 598, 131 Conn. 206 
Zitkov v. Gorsky, 137 A. 751, 106 
Conn. 287. 

S.D. Colteaux v. First Trust & Sav- 
ings Bank, 218 N.W. 151, 52 S.D. 
443. 

Tex. Norris y. Stoneham, Civ.App., 
46 S.W.2d S63. 

94 Kan. Southern Kansas Stage 
Lines Co. v. Webb, 41 P.2d 1025, 
141 Kan. '476. 

95. La. Prudhome'v. Cedar Grove 
Refining Co., App., 157 So. 158. 

98. Ariz. Price v. Sunfleld, 112 P. 
2d 210, 57 Ariz. 142. 

Ark, Hunt v. Road Improvement 
Dist. No. 12 of Woodruff County, 
270 S.W. 961, 168 Ark. 266. 

Colo. Buchhalter v. Myers, 276 (P. 
972, 85 Colo. 419. 

Ga. Ramey v. McCoy. 179 <3.E. 730, 
DL80 Ga. 521. 

111. Kohler v. Kohler, 61 N.E.2d 
687, 326 001. 105 Baxter v. Conti- 
nental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust 
Co. of Chicago, 26 N.E.2d 179, 304 
IlLApp. 117. 

Kan. Old (Peoples Home of Illinois 
Conference of Methodist Episcopal 
Church, Quincy, 111., v. Miltner, 89 
P.2d 874, 149 Kan. 847. 

Ky. Braun v. naith, 178 S.W.2d 
940, 297 Ky. 162 Key v. Hays, 
166 e.W.2d 8*0, 292 Ky. 423 
Jameson v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d 
923, 280 Ky. 654 Berry v. Riess, 
121 S.W.2d 942, 276 Ky. 114-<!hes- 
apeake & O. Ry. Co. v. City of 
Olive ECiU, 21 S.W.2d 127, 231 Ky. I 

128 



65 Rex Red Ash Coal Co. T. 
Powers, 290 S.W. HO 61, 218 Ky. 93. 

Mo. Verdon v. Silvara, 274 S.W. 79, 
308 Mo. 607, 

N.T. Claris v. Richards, 183 N.R 
904, 260 N.T. 419. 

Or. City of (Portland v. Hurst, 28 
P.2d 217, ,145 Or. 415 Robinson 
v. Oregon City Sand & Gravel Co., 
20 OE>2d 1073, 143 Or. 177. 

S.C. Griggs v. Griggs, 19 S.B.2d 
477, 199 S.C. 295. 

S.D. Hunt v. Dolphin, 223 N.W. 84, 
54 3.D. 261. 

Tex. Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W.Sd 
207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on oth- 
er grounds 172 S.W.2d 89, 141 Tex. 
253 Saner- Whit eman Lumber Co. 
v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., Com. 
App., 288 S.W. (127, rehearing de- 
nied 288 S.W. 1068 Spradlin v. 
Gibbs, Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 246 
International Order of Twelve 
Knights and Daughters of Tabor 
v. Fridia, Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 404 
W. L. Moody Cotton Co. v. IPol- 
ley, Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 807 Card- 
er v. Knippa Mercantile Co., Civ. 
App., 1 S.W.2d 462, error dismiss- 
edSan Antonio Southern Ry. Co. 
v. Burd, Civ.App., 246 -S.W. 1060, 
modified on other grounds Burd 
v. San Antonio Southern R. Co., 
Com.App., 261 S.W. 1021. 

33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b], p 1151 
note 17 [b], [c], 19 [a], p 1152 
note 21 [a], [c]. 

97. Ky. Commonwealth v. Kentuc- 
ky Jockey Club, 58 S.W.Sd 987, 
238 Ky. 7-39. 
Tex. Forman v. Barroti, Civ.App., 

120 S.W.2d 827, error refused. 
Tort or contract see infra $ 5-3. 
In rein or in. personam 

An action in rem will not sup- 
port a judgment in personam. 
N.T. Sturcke v. Link, 26 N.T.S.2d 

7-48, 176 Misc. 93. 
S.C. Parker Peanut Co. v. Felder, 

34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C. 63. 
Aflsnmpsit; moneys had and received 
Where an action in assumpsit 
would not lie, judgment for plaintiff 
could not be supported by count for 
moneys had and received.- Schweit- 
zer v. Bank of America N. T. & S, A., 
109 P.2d 441, 42 Cal.App.2d 636. 
Goods sold and delivered* indebita- 

tos assunpsit 

The fact that the declaration 
sought to recover for goods sold and 
delivered did not prevent recovery 
in indebitatus assumpsit, where it 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



53 



common law a judgment must be warranted by the 
form of the action. 98 Thus it has been held that a 
judgment in debt is erroneous where the declara- 
tion is in assumpsit" or in case, 1 or in replevin; 2 
and similarly that, where the declaration is in debt, 
a judgment in assumpsit 8 or in damages 4 is er- 
roneous; but, by the practice of the majority of 
states, a judgment in damages on a declaration in 
debt will be good, the objection being merely techni- 
cal, 5 and, vice versa, a judgment entered in debt 
instead of in damages is good. 6 On a declaration in 
trespass, a recovery in case has been permitted. 7 

In code states, the common-law forms of plead- 
ing having been abolished, it is the duty of the 
courts to give such judgment as the pleadings and 
evidence warrant, without regard to the form or 
name of the action. 8 



53. Grounds of Action or Defense 

As a general rule, a Judgment for a plaintiff must 
be based on the cause of action which he has alleged, 
and not on some theory Inconsistent with, or totally dif- 
ferent from, that suggested in his pleading. Similarly, 
a defendant ordinarily must prevail according to the case 
made by his answer. 

Relief to, or a recovery by, plaintiff must be 
based on, and justified by, facts alleged in his plead- 
ing. 9 Unless defendant, by his silence or conduct, 
has acquiesced in the trial of the new and different 
cause of action on which the judgment proceeded, 
as discussed supra 50, a plaintiff ordinarily must 
recover, if at all, on the cause of action which he 
has alleged, and a judgment in his favor must be 
based on the theory or ground of liability on which 
in his pleadings he has placed his right to recover. 10 



also alleged that plaintiff paid out 
money at defendant's request, which 
was supported by the evidence intro- 
duced. Campbell v. Willis, 290 F. 
271, 53 AppJXC. 296. 

98. Minn.- GervaJs v. Powers. 1 
Minn. 45. 

33 C.J. p 1155 note 48. 

99. Ark. Jones v. Robinson, 8 Ark. 
484. 

33 C.J. p 1155 note 49. 

1. Ky. Lynch v. Freeland, Ky. 
Dec. 269. 

2. R.I. Warren v. Letter, 52 A. 76. 
24 R.I. {36. 

33 'C.J. p 1155 note 51. 

3. Colo. Anderson v. Sloan, 1 Colo. 
484. 

33 C.J. p 1155 note 52. 

4. 111. Ross v. Taylor, 68 111. 215. 
33 C.J. p 1155 note 53. 

5. Vt. Carver v. Adams, 40 Vt. 552. 
33 C.J. p 1156 note 54. 

6. Ala. iPerdue v. Burnett, Minor p 
138. 

Ky. Jenkins v. Teates, 2 J.J.Marsh. 
48. 

7. Pa. Miller v. Lehigh County. 5 
Pa.Dist. 588. 

33 C.J. p 1156 note 56. 

8. U.S. Lumbermen's Trust Co. v. 
Town of Ryegate, C.OA.Mont., 61 
F.2d 14. 

Conn. Makusevich v. Gotta, 13-9 A. 

780, 107 Conn. 207. 
Or. Weith v. Klein, 2SS P. 902, 136 

Or. 201. 
Tex. Dittmar v. Alamo Nat Co., 118 

S.W.2d 298, 132 Tex. 44. 
33 C.J. p 1156 note 57. 

9. Ariz. White v. Hamilton, 299 P. 
124, 38 Ariz. 256 City of Yuma v. 
English, 226 P. 531, 26 Ariz. 438. 

Cal. Bridge v. New Amsterdahi 
Casualty Co., 19 'P.2d 76, 129 
Cal.App, 35-5 Westervelt v. Mc- 
Cullough, 228 P. 734, 68 CaLApp. 
198 Imperial Water Co. No. 4 v 

49 C. XS.-9 



Meserve, 217 IP. 553, 62 CaI.App. j 
603. 

Conn. Masterton v. Lenox Realty 
Co., 15 A.2d 11, 127 Conn. 25 
Frosch v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 
199 A* 646, 124 Conn. 300 <Maz- 
ziottl v. Di Martino, 130 A. 844, 
103 Conn. 491. 

Ga. Mendel v. Converse & Co., 118 
S.E. 586, 30 Ga,App. 5*49. 

Ind. Indianapolis Real Estate 
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, $8 
Ind. App. 72. 

Minn. Hurr v. Davis, 198 N.W. 943, 
155 Minn. 456, rehearing denied 
194 N.W. 379, 155 Minn. 456, cer- 
tiorari denied 44 S.Ct 36, 263 U.S. 
709, 68 L.Ed.. 518, and error dis- 
missed 45 S.Ct 227, 267 U.S. 572, 
69 L.Ed. 794. 

Mo. Bragg v. Specialty Shoe (Ma- 
chinery Co., 84 <S.W.2d 184, 225 
Mo.App. 902. 

Mont. Kramlich v. Tullock, 277 P. 
411, 84 Mont. 601. 

N.Y. Garflnkel & Steinberg Corpo- 
ration v. Bandlers Sutphin, Inc., 
299 N.Y.-S. 536, 252 App.Div. 858 
Blackwell v. Glidden Co., 203 
N.Y.S. 380, 208 App.Div. 317, af- 
firmed 147 NJB. 188, 239 N.T. 5'45 
MacLeold v. Miller, 201 N.Y.S. 
108. 

N.C. Barron v. Cain, 4 S.E.2d 618, 
216 N.C. 282. 

Tenn. Polk v. Chattanooga Wagon 
& Body Co., 2 Tenn.App. 415. 

Tex. Jackson v. Cloer, Civ. App., 9$ 
S.W.2d 353 Smoot & Smoot v. 
Nelson, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 578 
Hall v. First Nat Bank, Civ.App., 
252 S.W. 328, modified on other 
grounds 254 S.W. 522. 

Utah. Stevens & Wallis v. Golden 
Porphyry Mines Co., 18 P.24 303, 
81 Utah 414. 

33 O.J. P 1156 note 60, p 1157 note 
61. 

Cause or theory asserted in reply 
(1) Ordinarily a judgment may 

129 



not be rendered on a cause of action 

asserted in a reply. 

Ky. Hacker v. Clay County, 165 S. 

W.2d 172, 291 Ky. 614. 
Mo. Regal Realty & Investment Co. 

v. Gallagher, 188 S.W. 151. 
33 C.J. p 1156 note 60 [d]. 

(2) Where plaintiff in his com- 
plaint sought recovery of land on 
the theory that a deed to him was an 
absolute .conveyance, and defendant 
In his answer claimed that the deed 
was in fact a mortgage, and, where 
plaintiff in his reply sought foreclo- 
sure' if the deed were found to be a 
mortgage, it was held that a judg- 
ment directing foreclosure was Jus-, 
tified where the court found that the 
deed was a mortgage. Church v. 
Brown, 272 P. 511, 150 Wash. 173. 
New complaint 

If court permits filing of new com- 
plaint to conform to- proof, judgment 
should relate to new pleading. Bak- 
ersfield Sandstone Brick Co. v. Cas- 
cade Oil Co., 23 P.2d 423, 132 CaL 
App. 633. 
liability as indorser 

Defendants could not be held as 
indorsers on note where pleading 
showed that action was not brought 
on note. Kern v. Henry, 31 P.2d 454, 
138 CaLApp. 46. 
10. U.S. State Street Trust Co. v. 

U. S., D.C.Mass., 37 F.Supp. 846. 

affirmed, C.C.A., U. S. v. State 

Street Trust Co., 124 !F.2d 948. 
Ala. Chandler v. Price, 15 So.M 462, 

244 Ala. 667. 
Ariz. Jones v. Stanley, 233 P. 698, 

27 Ariz. 381. 
HI. Wood v. Wood, App., -64 N.E.2d 

385-^First Trust Joint Stock Land 

Bank of Chicago v. Cutler, 12 N.E. 
' 2d 705, 293 IlLApp. 354 Streeter 

y. .Humrichouse, 261 IlLApp. 556. 
Ind. City of Muncie v. Horlacher, 

53 N.B.3d 631, 222 Ind.. 302. 
La. Hope v. Madison, 183 So. 711, 

192 (La. 59$, 



53 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



Plaintiff cannot set up one cause of action in his 
complaint and recover on proof of another and a 
different cause of action; nor can he recover on 



some theory not suggested in his declaration or com- 
plaint. 11 It is particularly true that recovery on 



Me. Morrison v. Union Park Ass'n, 
149 A. 804, 129 Me. S8. 

Minn. Consumers' Grain Qo. v. Wm. 
Lindeke Roller Mills, 190 N.W. 65, 
153 Minn. 231. 

Mo. Pinet v. Pinet, App., 191 S.W.Sd 
362 Palmer v. Marshall, App., 2-4 
S.W.2d 229. 

N.Y. Jno. Dunlop's "Sons v. Alpren, 
212 N.Y.S. 307, 214 App.Div. 339 
Varda v. Lynch, 19-6 N.Y.S. 641, 
203 App.Div. 53*9 -Carroll v. Dryo- 
lin Corporation, 45 N.Y.S.2d 77, 182 
Misc. 260 Rochester Poster Adv. 
Co. T. Sm'lthers, 224 N.Y.'S. 711, 
130 Misc. 676, reversed on other 
grounds 231 N.Y.S. 315, 2'24 App. 
Div. 435 Siegler v. Bischof, 53 N. 
Y.S.2d 657 Kirkpatrick Home for 
Childless Women v. Kenyon, 196 
N.Y.S. 475, affirmed 199 N.Y.S. '851, 
206 App.Div. 728. 

N.C. Balentine v. Gill, 11 S.E.2d 456, 
218 N.C. 496 Wallace v. Wallace, 
188 S.B. 96. 210 N.C. 656. 

Ohio. Thompson v. Thompson, 181 
N.E. 272, 42 Ohio App. 164. 

Pa. In re Miller, Com.Pl., 32 Del. 
'Co. 'Se*. 

Tex. Nu-Enamel Paint Co. of Texas 
v. Culmore, Civ.App., T2 S.W.2d 
390 Tinsley v. Metzler, Civ. App., 
44 S.W.2d 820, error dismissed 
Gibbs v. Corbett, Civ.App., 292 S. 
W. 260 Superior Fire Ins. Co. v. 
C. S. Lee Grain & Elevator Co., 
Civ.App., 261 S.W. 212 Trott v. 
Flato, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 1085. 

33 C.J. p 1157 note 62, p 1158 note 

66, p 1159 note 67. 


Estoppel 

Where a complaint failed to allege 
facts constituting 1 an estoppel, a 
Judgment on that ground cannot "be 
upheld, whether a cause of action 
could or could not have been main- 
tained, had it been pleaded. Gibral- 
tar Realty Co. v. Security Trust Co., 
1.36 NiE. 636, 192 Ind. 502. 

Pailnre of consideration, 

In action by purchaser for rescis- 
sion of contract, relief could not be 
granted for failure of consideration 
where such failure was not pleaded. 
Clancy v. Becker-Arbuckle-Wright 
Corporation, 29 P.2d 868, 137 Cal. 
App. 43. 
Interest in land 

Petition alleging an agreement to 
purchase land and divide profits on 
resale, but not alleging that plain- 
tiff was to have any interest in the 
land, would not support a judgment 
for a portion of the land still un- 
sold. Carothers v. Creighton, Tex. 
Civ.App., 101 S.W.Sd 631. 
11. U.S. Storm Waterproofing Cor- 
poration v. Li. Sonneborn Sons, D. 
CDel., 28 F.2d 115 Durabilt Steel 



iLocker Co. v. Berger Mfg. Co., D. 
O.0hio, 21 F.2d 139. 

Colo. Rio Grande Fuel Co. v. Col- 
orado Central Power Co., 63 P. 
2d 470, 99 Colo. 395. 

Conn. Conzelman v. City of Bristol, 
188 A. -659, 122 Conn. 218. 

Fla. Gruber v. Cobey, 12 So.2d 461, 
152 Fla. 591 Foye Tie & Timber 
Co. v. Jackson, 97 So. 517, '86 Fla. 
97. 

Ga. Southern Lumber Co. v. Ed- 
wards, 117 S.E. 252, 30 Ga.App. 
223. 

111. Jacksonville Hotel Bldg. Corpo- 
ration v. Dunlap Hotel Co., 264 111, 
App. 279, modified on other 
grounds 183 N.E. 397, 550 111. 451. 

Ind. Gibraltar Realty Co. v. Se- 
curity Trust Co., 136 N.E. 636, 192 
Ind. '502 Denney v. Peters, 10 N. 
E.2d 7-54, 104 Ind.App. 504 Nes- 
bitt v. Miller, 188 N.E. 702, 98 Ind. 
App. 195. 

Kan. Harveyville State Bank v. Lee, 
234 P. 982, 118 Kan. 269. 

Ky. Smith v. Collins, '251 S.W. 979, 
199 Ky. T70. 

Me. Page v. Bourgon, 22 A.2d 577, 
138 Me. 113. 

Mo. Smith v. Thompson, 161 'S.W. 
2d 232, 349 Mo. 396 State ex rel. 
Kennedy v. Remmers, 101 S.W.2d 
70, 540 Mo. 126 Zamora v. Wood- 
men of the World Life Ins. Soc., 
App., 157 S.W.2d 601 Wasson v. 
Dow/ App., 251 S.W. 69. 

Mont. Outlook Farmers' Elevator 
Co. v. American 'Surety Co. of New 
York, 223 P. 905, 70 Mont. . 

N.Y. Kew Gardens Corporation v. 
Ciro's Plaza, 26 N.Y.S.2d 553, 2-61 
App.Div. 5*76 Douglass v. Wolcott 
Storage & Ice Co., 295 N.Y.S. 675, 
251 App.Div. 79 Berger v. Eichler, 
207 N.Y.S. 147, 211 App.Div. 479 
Security Bank of New York v. 
Finkelstein, 145 N.Y.S. 5, 160 App. 
Div. 315, affirmed 112 N.B. 1076, 
217 N.Y. 707 Bernstein v. East 
167th Street Corporation, 293 N. 
Y.S. 109, 161 Misc. 836? Rosen- 
blum v. Pas Holding Corporation, 
28 N.Y.S.2d '589. 

Or. McCann v. Oregon Scenic Trips 
Co., 209 P. 483, 105 Or. 213, fol- 
lowed in 'Smith v. Oregon Scenic 
Trips Co., 209 P. 486, 10'5 Or, 222. 

S.D. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. 
Frick, 245 N.W. 921, -61 S.D. 9. 

Tex. Johnson Aircrafts v. Wilborn, 
Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 426 City of 
Temple v. Mitchell, Civ.App., 180 
S.W.2d 959 City State Bank in 
Wellington v. Wellington Inde- 
pendent School Diet, Civ.App., 173 
S.W.2d 738, affirmed 178 S.W.2d 
114, 142 Tex. 344 Chamblin v. 
Webb, Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 676 
Strack v. Strong, Ctv.App., 114 S. 

130 



W.2d 313, error dismissed Stuard 
v. Vick, Civ.App., 9 S.W.2d 494, 
error dismissed Rockhold v. 
Lucky Tiger Oil Co., Civ.App., 4 
S.W.2d 1046, error dismissed 
American Law Book Co. v. Dykes, 
Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 630 First State 
Bank of Wortham v. Bland, Civ. 
App., 291 S.W. 650 C. A. Bryant 
Co. v. Hamlin Independent School 
Dist., Civ.App., 274 S.W. 266. 
Wis. Lee v. Pauly Motor Truck Co., 

190 N.W. '819, 179 Wis. 139. 
33 C.J. p 1157 note 62, p 1159 note 67. 
Public or private way 

In a suit brought on the theory of 
the existence of a private way, judg- 
ment cannot be based on the theory 
that the road or way was a public 
one. 
Cal. Hare v. Craig, 276 P. 336, 206 

Cal. 753. 

Utah. Thornley Land & Livestock 
Co. v. Morgan Bros. Land & Live- 
stock Cd, 17 P.2d '826, 81 Utah 817. 
Contract as oral or written 

(1) Judgment on wholly written 
contract has no support in pleadings 
declaring on partly written contract. 
C. A. Bryant Co. v. Hamlin Inde- 
pendent School Dist., Civ.App., IS S. 
W.2d 750, certified questions an- 
swered 14 S.W.2d 53, 118 Tex. 255. 

(2) In suit to recover for inter- 
ference with contract, where plain- 
tiff alleged a contract in writing, 
plaintiff was not entitled to relief 
for interference with an oral con- 
tract collateral to written contract. 
Tompkins v. Sullivan, 48 N.E.2d 15, 
313 Mass. 459. 

Negligence; trespass 

(1) Where the allegations and 
trial are based exclusively on the 
theory of negligence, recovery on a 
ground other than negligence is not 
permissible. 

Conn. Epstein v. City of New Ha- 
ven, 132 A. 467, 104 Conn. 283. 

N.Y. Rock v. Radice Electric Co., 
223 N.Y.S. 659, 131 Misc. 51. 

33 C.J. p 1158 note 66 [a] (1), (5), 
C7), p 1159 note 67 [a] (2). 

(2) A judgment based on negli- 
gence is not supported by allega- 
tions solely of trespass. 

Mo. Mawson v. Vess Beverage Co., 

App., 173 S.W.-2d 606. 
Tex. Michels v. Crouch, Civ.App., 

122 S.W.2d '211. 

53 C.J. p 1159 note 67 [a] (10), (11). 
ISTature of tenancy 

Where plaintiffs alleged and trial 
proceeded on theory that defendants 
were hold-over tenants for one year, 
it was error to grant judgment for 
plaintiffs on ground that tenancy 
was from month to month and that 
proper notice of intention to quit 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



53 



an inconsistent theory will not be permitted. 12 In 
some jurisdictions, however, a party is entitled to 
any relief appropriate to the facts alleged and 
proved, irrespective of the theory on which they 
may be alleged j 1 * and the fact that a party has 
pleaded an erroneous theory does not bar him from 
recovering if the facts he has pleaded support a 
proper theory of recovery.** 

Proof of a different cause of action from that al- 
leged in the declaration or 'complaint amounts to a 
failure of proof, and is not a mere variance; 15 
but, where the substantial facts creating the liabili- 



ty are alleged and proved, a recovery may be had, 
although they are alleged inaccurately in detail, be- 
cause this does not amount to a change of theory 
or a recovery on grounds not alleged. 16 Where re- 
covery is sought on several grounds, a judgment 
supported by one of the grounds is proper notwith- 
standing the failure to establish the other grounds 
of liability; 17 but in such case the judgment must 
be supported by all the elements of at least one of 
the different grounds of recovery. 18 

Ordinarily defendant must prevail, if at all, ac- 
cording to the case made by his answer ; 19 but this 



had not been given. McAuley v. 

Cresci, 19 N.Y.S.2d 221. 

Recovery wider different statutory 

provision, 

(1) Plaintiff cannot sue on one 
statute and sustain verdict Justifi- 
able only on different statute. Bat- 
terton v. Pima County, 271 P. 720, 
34 Ariz. 347. 

(2) However, although facts 
proved did not make out breach of 
warranty under subdivision of stat- 
ute on which plaintiff relied, but 
made out breach of warranty under 
another subdivision, plaintiff was 
held entitled to judgment Ryan v. 
Progressive-Grocery Stores, 175 N.E. 
105. 255 N.T. 3'88, 74 A.L.R. 339. 
Retention of property 

Buyer's complaint to recover price 
of property after rescission for 
breach .of warranty and offer to re- 
turn did not authorize judgment 
based on breach of warranty per- 
mitting buyer to keep the property. 
Schmelzer v. Winegar, 216 N.Y.S. 
507, 217 App.Div. 194. 
12. Ark. H. V. Beasley Music Co. 

v. Cash, 262 S.W. 656, 164 Ark. 

572. 
Colo. Cattell v. Denver State Bank, 

225 P. 271, 75 Colo. 150. 
N.Y. Lunger v. New York Life Ins. 

Co., 225 N.Y.S. 730, 131 Misc. 42. 
33 C.J. p 1160 note 68. 
Affirmance of contract 

Where purchaser elected to affirm 
contract and sued for damages for 
breach, the court was without au- 
thority to render judgment for can- 
cellation of deed and a return of the 
purchase price. Freeman v. Ander- 
son, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 1081. 
Rescission; fraud 

Decree for rescission of sale of 
stock was unauthorized where pur- 
chaser sued for damages for fraud. 
Bondurant v. Raven CJoal Co., Mo. 
App., 25 S.W.2d 566. 
Property as community or separate 

Judgment for plaintiff on finding 
that property awarded her was sep- 
arate property required reversal, 
where her pleadings alleged that it 
was community property. Bray v. 
Bray, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 625. 



13L CaL Estrin v. Superior Court 
in and for Sacramento County, 96 
P.2d 340, 14 Cal.2d 670 Lucas v. 
Assodacao Protectora Uniao Mad- 
eirense Do Estado Da California, 
143 P.2d 53, 61 Cal.App.2d 344 
Bank of America Nat Trust & 
Savings Ass'n v. Casady, 59 P.2d 
444, 15 Cal.App.2d 163 Lacey v. 
McConnell, 48 P.2d 161, 9 Cal.App. 
2d 6. 
Accounting 1 

If plaintiff has a cause of action 
of which court has jurisdiction, and 
accounting is necessary to determine 
his rights, accounting will be or- 
dered " regardless of erroneous legal 
theory on which the action is based. 
Nelson v. Abraham, CaLApp., 162 
P.2d 833. 

14. Cal. Mannon v. Pesula, 139 P. 
2d 336, 59 Cal.App.2d 597. 

15 Wash. McLachlan v. Gordon, 

150 P. 441, 86 Wash. 282. 
33 C.J. P 1158 note 64. 

10. Va. Lawson v. Conoway, 1-6 S. 

E. 564, 37 W.Va, 159/18 L.R.A. G27, 

35 Am.S.R. 17. 
33 C.J. p 1160 note 69. 
Actions on notes 

(1) Judgment for plaintiff was 
not erroneous on ground that plain- 
tiff declared on promissory note .nd 
proved defendant Indebted on bills 
of exchange. ^tna Inv. Corporation 
v. Barnes, Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 221. 

(2) Where complaint was based 
on note given for money loaned, con- 
tention that judgment was entered 
for money loaned, and hence was im- 
proper, was without merit. Casset- 
ta v. Bairaa, 288 P. 330, 106 CaLApp. 
196. 

17. Ala. Robinson v. Solomon Bros. 
Co., 155 So. 553, 229 Ala. 137. 

Ind. American Carloading Corpora- 
tion v. Gary Trust & Savings 
Bank, 25 N.E.2d 777, 216 Ind. 649. 
y. Peck v. Trail, 65 S.W.2d 83, 2-51 
Ky. 377. 

Wis. Krier Preserving Co. v. West 
Bend Heating & Lighting Co., 225 
N.W. 200, 198 Wis. 595. 

18. Tex. West Texas Utilities Co. 

131 



v. Dunlap, Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 
749. 

19. U.S. El Dorado Terminal Co. v. 
General American Tank Car Cor- 
poration, C.C.A.Cal., 104 P.2d 903, 
reversed on other grounds 60 S.Ct 
325, 308 U.S. 422, 84 L.Ed. 361, re- 
hearing denied 60 S.Ct 4-65, 309 
U.S. 694, 84 L.Ed. 1035. 

CaL -Brown v. Sweet, 272 P. 614, 95 
CaLApp. 117. 

Ga. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 
137 S.E. 277, 36 Ga.App. 497 
Stewart v. Hardin, 101 S.E. 716, 24 
Ga.App. 611. 

111. Rosenthal v. Board of Educa- 
tion of City of Chicago, 110 N.E. 
579, 270 111. 380 Thulin v. Ander- 
son, 154 Ill.App. 41. 

Iowa. Hornish v. Overton, 221 N.W. 
483, 206 Iowa 780. 

La. Homes v. James Buckley & Co., 
116 So. 218, 165 La. 874. 

Mass. Shattuck v. Wood Memorial 
Home, 66 .N.E.2d 568 Pollard v. 
Ketterer, 108 N.B. 1086, 221 Mass. 
317. 

Mo. Lebrecht v. New State Bank, 
Woodward, OkL, 205 S.W. 273, 199 
Mo.App. -642 White v. United 
Brothers and Sisters of Mysteri- 
ous Ten, App., 180 S.W. 406. 

N.Y. Marshall v. Sackett & Wil- 
helms Co., 151 N.Y.S. 1045, 166 
App.Div. 141 Continental Bank & 
Trust Co. of New York v. Good- 
ner, 49 N.Y.S.2d 747 Junco v. La 
Cabana, Inc., 20 N.Y.S.2S 781, af- 
firmed 25 N.Y.S.2d 779, 261 App. 
Div. 803. 

Or. Wolf v. Hougham, 12*5 P. 801, 
62 Or. 264. 

Pa. Gliwa v. U. S. Steel Corpora- 
tion, 185 A. $84, 322 Pa. 225, cer- 
tiorari denied 57 S.Ct 117, 299 
U.S. 593, 81 L.Ed. 437 McCormick 
v. Harris, 196 A. 885, 130 Pa.Super. 
175. 

Tex. Dashiel v. Lott, Com.App., 243 
S.W. 1072 Ohastain v. Gilbert, 
Civ.App., 145 S.W.Sd 938 Wardy 
v. Casner, Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 772,~ 
error dismissed Sproles v. Rosen, 
Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 331, affirmed 84 
S.W.2d 1001, 126 Tex. 51 Bennett 
V. Giles, Civ.App. f 12 S.W.2d 843 



53 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



is not unqualifiedly true, 20 and, where the burden of 
proof is on plaintiff, defendant is entitled to take 
advantage of a failure of proof, regardless of the 
pleadings. 21 

Tort or contract. A pleading sounding in tort 
will not support a judgment based on a contract, 22 
and conversely, under a pleading on a caiise of ac- 
tion sounding in contract, a recovery as for a tort 
is erroneous. 2 * it has been held that these rules 
have not been changed by code provisions; 24 but 
it has also been held that, under statutes abolish- 
ing forms of action and requiring that merits only 
shall be considered, recovery may be had in con- 
. tract, if the allegations and proof support such a 
right, although the declaration sounds in tort. 25 
Where a pleading sets forth two causes of action, 
one in contract and the other in tort, and defendant 
has not requested a separation of the causes, plain- 



Oscar v. Sackville, Civ.App., 253 

'S.W. 651. 

33 C.J. p 1161 note 75. 
Failure of consideration; fraud 

Where defense pleaded in an ac- 
tion on contract was failure of con- 
sideration, but case was submitted 
to jury on theory of fraudulent rep- 
resentations whereby defendant was 
fraudulently induced to execute con- 
tract sued on, judgment for defend- 
ant could not stand. Chamblin^v. 
Webb, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 676. 

Bight of way 

In action to Quiet title to land en- 
cumbered with right of way, judg- 
ment for designated defendants 
could not be sustained on ground 
that suit established way of neces- 
sity, where such right was not al- 
leged or adjudicated. Bertolina v. 
Frates, 57 P.2d 346, 89 Utah 238. 
Deduction of premium 

Insurer, defending on single the- 
ory that policy was void, was not en- 
titled to deduction for unpaid premi- 
um Masson v. New England Mut. 
Life Ins. Co., 260 P. 367, 85 CaLApp. 
633. 
go, K.Y. Whiting v. Glass, 111 

IB. 1082, 217 N.Y. 335. 
33 'C.J. p H61 note 76. 
Inability to plead laches 

Where the theory that plaintiff's 
case was based on fraud was flrsi 
disclosed by his reply and was noi 
indicated by the complaint so that 
defendant could not plead laches, al- 
though he was entitled to do so, de- 
fendant was nevertheless entitled to 
insist on such defense if there was 
evidence to support it. -Crosby v 
Bobbins, 182 P. 12-2, 66 Mont. 179. 
21. Wash. Easter v. Hall, 40 P 

728, 12 Wash. 160. 
33 C.J. P H61 n te 77. 



tiff may recover on either one which he may 
prove, 2 * although he may not recover on both. 27 

General and special assumpsit. Plaintiffs who 
sue on a special or express contract ordinarily can- 
not recover on an implied contract, such as a quan- 
tum meruit, and vice versa,28 although in some cas- 
es such recovery has been permitted. 29 Where the 
declaration or complaint contains counts or allega- 
tions seeking recovery on an implied contract apart 
from the special contract, a recovery thereon may 
be had. 80 Under the common counts no recovery 
may be had for breach of a special contract. 31 

Legal or equitable. Under codes and practice acts 
it has frequently been made the duty of the court 
to grant such relief as the complaint and the proof 
thereunder show plaintiff entitled to receive, with- 
out any distinction between law and equity. 32 The 
relief granted, however, must nevertheless be con- 
sistent with the case made by the complaint. 33 If 

Recovery Held proper 

A contract to act as defendant's 
business agent, although not con- 
templating lawsuits, necessarily in- 
cluded services in connection there- 
with if necessary, as in procuring 
witnesses, and hence recovery for 
such services was on the express 
contract pleaded aJid not on an im- 
plied contract Crawford's Adm'r v. 
Ross, 186 S.W.2d 797, -299 Ky. 664. 



22. U.S.-^Tohnston v. Venturing C. 

.A.Pa., -294 P. S3 6. 
Tex. Joe B. Winslett, Inc. v. City 

of Hamlin, Civ.App., "56 S.W.2d 

237 McFaddin v. Sims, 97 S.W. 

335, 45 Tex.Civ.App. 598. 
33 C.J. p 1161 note 73. 
Fraud 

Judgment cannot be rendered as 
on contract or in assumpsit where 
the complaint is in fraud. . 
Mich. Barber v. Kolowich, 277 N. 

W. 189, 283 Mich. 97. 
N.Y. Smith v. Cohen, 175 N.E. 361, 

'256 N.Y. 33. 
33 C.J. p 1161 note 78 [b]. 
Conversion 

Plaintiff electing to sue In con 
version could not recover in as- 
sumpsit for money had and received. 
Maxol Syndicate v. N. T. Hege- 
man Co., 245 N.Y.S. 99, 158 Misc. 
179. 

23. Tex ._j oe B. Winslett, Inc. v. 
City of Hamlin, Civ.App., 56 S.W. 
2d 237. 

33 C.J. p 1161 note 79. 

24. N.Y. Degraw v. Elmore, 50 N 
Y. 1. 

33 C.J. P H62 note 80. 

25. Miss.^Southeastern Exp. Co. v 
Namie, 181 So. 515, 182 Miss. 447 

23. Colo. Erisman v. McCarty, 236 
P. ?77, 77 Colo. 289. 

27. Colo. Erisman v. McCarty, su- 
pra. 

281 Ind. Indianapolis Real Estat 

Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, 9 

Ind.App. 72. 
Me. Dufour v. Stebbins, 145 A. 893 

128 Me. 133. 
N.Y.-^Sears v. Hetfield, 221 N.Y.S 

494, 220 App.Div. 725. 
33 C.J. p 1160 note 70. 



29. CaL Warder v. Hutchison, 231 
P. 563, 69 CaLApp. 291, 

33 C.J. P 1161 note 71. 

30. S.C. Cleveland v. Butler, 78 S. 
E. SI, 94 S.C. 406. 

! -C.J. p 1161 note T2. 

31. Mich. 5ook v. Bade, 158 N.W. 
175, 191 Mich. 561. 

53 C.J. p 11-61 note 73. 

32. Cal. Waters v. Woods, 42 P.2d 
1072, 5 Cal.App.2d 483 Arbucklo 
v. Clifford F. Reid, Inc., 4 P.2d 978, 
118 CaLApp. 272. 

Okl. Fernow v. Gubser, 162 P.2d 
529 Owens v. Purdy, 217 P. 425, 
90 Okl. 2'56. 
33 C.J. p 1162 note 83. 
Enforcement of legal right* accord. 

Ing to rules of law 
Where, although plaintiff asks 
equitable relief, he alleges and 
proves only such facts as entitle him 
to strict legal rights, court will en- 
force his legal rights, but only ac- 
cording to strict rules of law. 
Grant v. Hart, 14 S.B.2d 860, 192 Ga. 
153. 

33. MO. Congregation B'Nai Abra- 
ham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 1899, 323 
Mo. '776 Bragg v. Specialty Shoe 
Machinery Co., 54 S.W.2d 1*4, 225 
Mo.App. 90*2. 

33 C.J. p 1162 note 84. 



132 



49 G.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



|54 



the complaint is framed solely for equitable relief, 
even under the code, where the same court admin- 
isters both systems of law and equity, the party 
must maintain his equitable action on equitable 
grounds or fail, even though he may prove a good 
cause of action at law on the trial 84 Averment 
of an equitable cause of action and proof of only 
a legal cause of action has been held to be a vari- 
ance amounting to a failure of proof; 85 but, where 
an equitable cause of action is established, the judg- 
ment may award legal relief, as for example, by 
way of damages, in lieu of equitable relief which 
in the particular case is impracticable or inequita- 
ble. 86 Where the facts alleged will support either 
legal or equitable relief, or both, 8 ? or where, by ac- 
quiescence and failure to object, the issues have 
been broadened so as to include the legal cause of 
action, 88 a judgment on the legal cause of action 
is proper, although the equity fails. Where the 
complaint alleges only a cause of action at law, 
and the proof fails to establish the cause of ac- 
tion alleged, equitable relief ordinarily will not be 



awarded, although it appears that plaintiff would 
be entitled thereto on a properly framed com- 
plaint; 89 but equitable relief may be granted, al- 
though only legal relief is prayed, where both the 
allegations and the proofs show that plaintiff is en- 
titled to equitable relief. 40 

54. Amount of Recovery 

a. In general 

b. Interest 

a. In General 

The judgment must conform to the pleadings and 
proof with respect to the amount of the recovery, al- 
though a recovery for more than the sum demanded may 
be proper where permitted by statute, or where by con- 
sent of the parties the pleadings have been enlarged by 
the evidence. An excessive judgment, although erro- 
neous and subject to correction, Is not on that account 
void. 

In amount, as in other respects, a judgment must 
conform to, and be supported by, the pleadings 41 
and the proof. 42 A judgment for more than the 



34. Or. McCann v. Oregon Scenic 
Trips Co., 209 P. 483, 105 Or. 213, 
followed in Smith v. Oregon Scenic 
Trips Co., 209 P. 486, 105 Or. 222. 

33 C.J. p 1162 note 85. 

35. N.Y.-- Jackson v. Strong 118 N. 
E. 512, 222 N.T. 149. 

33 C.J. p 1163 note 86. 

36. 111. Stella v. Mosele, 27 N.B. 
2d 559, 305 111. App. 577, 

33 C.J. p 1163 note 87. 

Retention of jurisdiction by equity 

to afford legal relief see Equity 

69. 

37. U.S. Hagar v. Townsend, C.C. 
N.T., $7 P. 433, affirmed 72 Fed. 
949, 19 C.C.A. 256. 

33 C.J. p 1163 note 89. 

38. N.Y. Fairchild v. -Lynch, 42 N. 
Y Super. 265. 

33 C.J. p 1163 note 90. 
Issues broadened by consent see su- 
pra $50. 

39. N.C. McParland v. Cornwell, 66 
S.E/454, 1-51 N.C. 42'8. 

33 C.J. p 1163 note 92. 

40. N.Y. Hale T. Omaha Nat. Bank, 
49 N.Y. 626. 

33 C.J. p 1163 note 93. 

41. Ky. Asher v. Pioneer Coal Co., 
283 S.W. 954, 214 Ky. 505. 

La. Ethrldge-Atkins Corporation v. 
Abraham, App., 160 So. 817 Unity 
Plan Finance Co., v. Green, App., 
148 So. 297, annulled on other 
grounds 151 So. 85, reversed on 
other grounds 155 So. 900, 179 
La. 1070 Bird v. Johnson, 133 So. 
516, 16 La.Ajpp. 155. 

N.Y. Universal Steel Export Co. v. 
N. & G. Taylor Co., 203 N.Y.& 331, 



'208 App.Div. 308, affirmed 147 N.E. 
209, 239 N.Y. '594. 

N.C. Corpus Juris quoted in Slmms 
v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559, 
221 N.C. 379. 

Pa. Zuber v. Rinko, Com.Pl., 10 Sch. 
Reg. 159. . 

Tex. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Eng- 
lish, 72 S.W. 58, 9-6 Tex. 268 
Kaufman Oil Mill v. Republic Nat. 
Bank & Trust Co., Civ. App., 43 S. 
W.2d 269. 

33 C.J. p 1163 note 95. 

Absence of issue limiting- plaintiffs' 

interest 

Where defendant had withdrawn 
an answer alleging- as a pro tanto 
defense that the two plaintiffs were 
not the only heirs of the ancestor 
under whom they claimed, without re- 
iterating- that allegation in the 
amended answer, the court, on find- 
ing for plaintiffs, properly adjudged 
them to be the owners of the entire 
interest in the property involved, 
since there was no Issue limiting 
their interest Asher v. Gibson, 248 
S.W. 862, 198 Ky. 285. 
m partition 

(1) As a general rule plaintiff 
should not be awarded a greater 
share of the property than he claims. 
Carr v. Langford, Civ. App., 144 "S. 
W.2d 612, affirmed Langford v. Carr, 
159 S.W.2d 10*7, 138 Tex. 330 47 C. 
J. p 430 note 66. 

(2) However, the fact that com- 
plainant alleges himself to be enti- 
tled to a smaller interest in the lands 
than that to which he is really enti- 
tled under the facts alleged by him 
has been held to be no bar to a de- 
cree vesting in him his proper share. 

133 



Ky. King v. Middlesborough Town- 
lands Co., 50 S.W. 37, 106 Ky. 73, 
20 Ky.L. 1859, rehearing denied 
and opinion extended 106 Ky. 73, 
50 S.W. 1108, 20 Ky.L. 1859. 
N.Y. Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N.Y.S. 206, 
affirmed -30 N.E. 133, 131 N.Y. 227. 
Reservation, of issue for further de- 
termination 

Where determination of lessors' 
liability for sublessee's trespass was 
reserved for further adjudication, 
amount of lessors' liability was not 
limited by amount sought in origi- 
nal and amended petition. Davis v. 
Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 57 S.W. 
2d 542, 247 Ky. 642. 
Judgments held proper 
Conn. Winsor v. Hawkins, 37 A.2d 

222, 130 Conn. 669. 
Tex. Shropshire v. Jones, Civ.App., 
129 S.W.2d 4SO Hill v. Willett 
Civ.App., 281 S.W. 1110 Decatur 
[Land, Loan & Abstract Co. v. Rut- 
land, Civ.App. f 185 S.W. 1064. 
42. N.C. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 
559, 221 N.C. 379. 

Tex. Zaunbrecher v. Trim, Civ. 
App., 31 S.W.2d *839 Fidelity Un- 
ion Fire Ins. Co. v. Barnes, Civ. 
App., 293 S.W. 279. 
W.Va, De Stubner v. United Carbon 

Co., 28 S.B.2d 59-3, 126 W.Va, 363. 
33 C.J. p 1164 note 96. 
Erroneous basis of value 

Judgment In amount based on 
price contended for by neither par- 
ty to action for balance due on mer- 
chandise sold at price to be fixed on 
future date was erroneous, legal 
rights of parties and interest of pub- 
lic at large demanding finding on 



i 54 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



.mount admitted or established to be due cannot 
tand. 43 Ordinarily a judgment cannot properly be 
endered for a greater sum, whether by way of debt 
>r damages, than is claimed or demanded by plain- 



tiff in his declaration or complaint, 44 plus, as dis- 
cussed infra subdivision b of this section, interest 
in proper cases, and costs, 45 notwithstanding the ev- 
idence may prove a greater debt or a greater 



)asls of value in keeping- with con- 
;ention of one side or other. Max- 
yell Planting Co. v. A. P. Loveman 
& Co., 102 So. 45. 212 Ala. 228. 
Rents or damages 

(1) A judgment awarding rents 
3r substantial damages in an action 
Df ejectment should be based on 
testimony as to their value. Hahn v. 
Cotton, 37 S.W. 919, 136 Mo. 216 
19 C.J. p 1240 note IB. 

(2) However, in some jurisdic- 
tions, it seems, no further proof is 
required, where an allegation of, and 
claim for, damages in a verified com- 
plaint is not controverted. Patter- 
son v. Ely, 19 Cal. 28. 

43. Cal. King v. San Jose Keystone 

Mining Co., 127 P.2d 286, 53 Cal. 

App.2d 40 Robinson v. Arthur R. 

Lindburg, Inc., 3'5 P.2d 1057, 140 

Cal. App. 669. 
Ga. Fred Didschuneit &. Son v. 

Enochs -Lumber & Mfg. Co., 156 S. 

B. 720, 42 Ga.App. 527. 
Ky. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of 

U. S. v. Austin, 72 S.W.2d 716, 255 

Ky. 23. 
Mo. Hecker v. Bleish, 3 S.W.2d 1008, 

319 Mo. 149 Vogt v. United Rys. 
'Co. of St. Louis, App. f 251 S.W. 

416. 

N.Y. Nassau Suffolk Lumber & Sup- 
ply Corporation v. Bruce, '3'8 N.Y. 

S.2d 75, 265 App.Div. 879, appeal 

denied 39 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2-65 App. 

Div. 1002. 
N.C. Corpus Juris quoted in Simms 

v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559, 

221 N.C. 379. 
Or. Olds v. Von der Hellen. 270 P. 

497, 127 Or. 276. 
T ex . Leftwich v. Summers, Civ. 

App., 89 S.W.2d 1091 Southwest- 
ern Bell Telephone Co. v. Burris, 

Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 542. 
Wash. Babare v. Rodman, 226 P. 

1015, 130 Wash. 317. 
33 C.J. p 1164 note 9719 C.J. p 1240 

note 16. 
Agreed valuation 

Where the agreed valuation of loss 
of goods sustained by a shipper was 
a certain amount, it was error to en- 
ter judgment for a larger amount. 
Lancaster v. Houghton, Tex.Civ.App., 
249 S.W. 1103, error dismissed 45 
S.Ct. 194, 266 U.S. 590, 69 L.Ed. 456. 

Mortgage as security for future 

debts 

In absence of proof of agreement 
to 'make the mortgage security for 
debts subsequently contracted, in 
awarding decree for amount of the 
mortgage only there was no error. 
Hoy v. Biladeau, 223 P. 241, 110 Or. 
591. 



Judgments held not excessive 

Cal. Estrin v. Fromsky, 12'7 P.2d 
603, '0*3 Cal.App.2d 253 Du Pont v. 
Allen, 294 P. 409, 110 CaLApp. -541. 

111. Simpson v. Heberlein, 259 111. 
App. -579. 

Tenn. Gore v. McDaid, 178 S.W.2d 
221, 27 Tenn.App. 111. 

Tex. Dallas Coffin Co. v. Roach, Civ. 
App., 93 S.W.2d 548, error dis- 
missed Stephens v. Reik, Civ. 
App., 247 S.W. 627. 

44. U.S. Williamson v. Chicago 
Mill & Lumber Corporation, C.C.A. 
Ark., 59 F.2d 918 Brown v. Minn- 
gas Co., D.C.Minn., 51 F.Supp. 363. 

Ala. Wyatt v. Drennen Motor Co., 
125 So. -649, 220 Ala. 413 Gowan 
v. Wisconsin- Alabama Lumber Co., 
110 So. 31, 215 Ala. 231. 

Cal. Merced Irr. Dist. v. San Joa- 
quin Light & Power Corporation, 
29 P.2d 843, 220 Cal. 196 Corpus 
Juris quoted in Meisner v. Mcln- 
tosh, 269 P. 612, 205 Cal. 11 Frost 
v. Mighetto, 71 P.2d 932, 22 CaL 
App.2d 612 Monterey Park Com- 
mercial & 'Savings Bank v. Bank of 
Hollywood, 13 P.2d 976, 125 'Cal. 
App. 402 Adjustment Corporation 
v. Marco, 279 P. 1006, 100 CaLApp. 
338 Capitol Woolen Co. v. Berger, 
262 P. 351, 87 CaLApp. 500. 

111. Klatz v. Pfeffer, 164 N.E. 224, 
333 I1L 90 Shealy v. Schwerin, 46 
N.E.2d 184, 317 111. App. 375 Burns 
v. Kaylor, 264 IlLApp. 469. 

Ky. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New 
York v. Breathitt County, 123 S. 
W.2d 250, 276 Ky. 173. 

La, Reimers v. Hebert, 111 So. 91, 
162 La. 772 Cuba v. iLykes Broth- 
ers-Ripley S. S. Co., App., 193 So. 
411 Huff v. Fitzsimmons, 132 So. 
257, 15 La.App. 441. 

Miss. Watkins v. Blass, 145 So. 348, 
1-64 Miss. 325. 

Mont. Clifton, Applegate & Toole v. 
Big Lake Drain Dist. No. 1, Still- 
water County, 267 P. 207, '82 Mont. 
312 Harbolt v. Hensen, 253 P. 257, 
78 Mont. 228. 

Nev. Donohue v. Pioche Mines Co., 
277 P. 980, Si Nev. 403, rehearing 
denied 279 P. 759, 51 Nev. 402. 

N,J. Goldberger v. City of Perth 
Amboy, 197 A. 267, 16 N.J.Misc. 84 
Bozza v. Leonardis, 131 A. 27, 
3 N.J.Misc. 1186. 

N.Y. Cavagnaro v. Bowman, 34 N. 
Y.S.2d 637, 264 App.Div. 118, ap- 
peal denied 36 N.Y.S.2d 187, 264 
App.Div. 853 Smith v. Dairymen's 
League "Co-op. Ass'n, 58 N.Y.S.2d 
376. 

Or. Leonard v. Bennett, 106 P.2d 
542, 165 Or. 157 Haberly v. Farm- 
ers' Mut Fire Relief Ass'n, 293 P. 

134 



590, 135 Or. 32, rehearing denied 
294 P. 594, 135 Or. 32. 
Pa. Porter v. Zeuger Milk Co., 7 A. 

2d 77, 136 Pa.Super. 48. 
Tenn. Mullins v. Greenwood, 6 

Tenn.App. 327. 

Tex. Denman v. Stuart, 17-6 S.W.2d 
730, 142 Tex. 129 Savage Oil Co.* 
v. Johnson, Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 
994, error dismissed, judgment cor- 
rect Federal Underwriters Ex- 
change v. Popnoe, Civ.App., 140 S. 
W.2d 484, error dismissed Dallas 
Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Wells, Civ. 
App., 60 S.W.2d 485, error refused 
Bell v. Beckum, Qiv.App., 44 S. 
W.2d 389 Dalton v. Realty Trust 
Co., Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 398 Os- 
ceola Oil Co. v. Stewart Drilling 
Co., ' Civ.App., 246 S.W. 698, re- 
versed on other grounds, Com.App., 
258 S.W. 806. 
Wis. In re Kehl's Estate, 254 N.W. 

639, 21'5 Wis. 353. 
19 C.J. p 1240 note 1 33 C.J. p 1164 

note 142 'C.J. p 1300 note 83. 
Double indemnity 

Where an insurance policy pro- 
vides for the payment of a double in- 
demnity for injuries sustained under 
specified conditions, the double In- 
demnity cannot be recovered unless 
specially claimed in the complaint. 
Crowder v. Continental Casualty Co., 
91 'S.W. 1016, 115 Mo.App. -535. 
Cumulative recovery 

(1) In a suit on a contract for 
cutting and loading timber, where 
plaintiffs alleged that they were to 
pay the expense out of their profits, 
a recovery of both profits and ex- 
penses was erroneous as cumulative. 
Branson v. Hamilton Ridge Lum- 
ber Corporation, 115 S.B. 624, 122 S. 
C. 436. 

(2) In proceeding under writ of 
seizure, where judgment is taken for 
amount sued for with interest, and 
property seized was valued in judg- 
ment at such amount, rendering fur- 
ther judgment for damages for de- 
preciation of property was error. 
Willsford v. Meyer-Kiser Corpora- 
tion, 104 So. 29'3, 139 Miss. 387. 

45. Tex. Christian v. Parmer 

County, Civ.App., 293 S.W. 234. 
33 C.J. p 1166 note 3. 
Absence of specific claim for costs 

(1) The costs that are properly 
recovered as such in the judgment 
as an incident to the main adjudica- 
tion are ordinarily not required to 
be specifically claimed in the plead- 
ings. State v. Barrs, 99 So. 668, -87 
Fla. 1-68. 

(2) A statutory allowance as 
costs may be included in the judg- 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



54 



amount of damage than was alleged by plaintiff.46 
A judgment for more than the amount originally 
claimed or demanded, however, may be proper 
where by consent or without objection of the par- 
ties the pleadings are enlarged by the evidence and 
are deemed amended so as to conform to the testi- 
mony; 47 and, where the averment of the amount of 
damages is deemed immaterial or surplusage, the 
judgment may exceed the damages claimed. 48 Fur- 
ther, under some statutory provisions, where de- 
fendant has appeared and answered, the amount of 



the judgment may be greater than the sum demand- 
ed, should the case justify it. 49 A judgment which 
includes an item of damages not within the issues 
raised by the pleadings 50 or established by the evi- 
dence 51 is erroneous. Where a bill of particulars 
is filed, a recovery is in general limited by the 
amount therein specified. 52 

The validity of a judgment usually is not affected 
by the mere fact that recovery is for a sum less 
than the claim originally asserted. 5 ^ Thus single 
damages are recoverable, although the declaration 



ment, although not claimed in the 
declaration. Paddock v. Missouri 
Pac. R. Co., 60 Mo.App. 328. 
Costs held improper 

(1) Plaintiff, in action to fore- 
close land contract, who prayed for 
possession and foreclosure of de- 
fendant's rights and for "such other 
and equitable relief as may be just 
and equitable/' was held under stat- 
ute not entitled to recover costs of 
defendant who put in appearance but 
made no defense. Doolittle v. High- 
lands Sheep Co., 200 N.W. 381, 184 
Wis. 625. 

(2) In suit to set aside deed, 
court erred in taxing costs against 
defendant, although plaintiff recov- 
ered a money judgment, where such 
judgment was proved solely by con- 
cessions of defendant as a witness, 
no costs were incurred therein, no 
claim had been made for it in peti- 
tion, and no dispute had existed be- 
tween parties over it Dunning v. 
Benson, 204 N.W. 260, 200 Iowa 121. 

46. Cal. Brown v. Ball, 12 P.2d 28, 
123 Cal.ApD. 758; 

La, Vincent *v. Cooper, App., 24 So. 
2d 503 Nona Mills Co. v. W. W. 
Gary Lumber Co., App., 127 So. 
425, annulled 132 So. 257, 15 La. 
App. 560. 

S.C. Carolina Veneer & Lumber Co. 
v.- American Mut Liability Ins. 
Co., 24 S.E.2d 153, 202 S.C. 103. 

Tex. Hartford Accident & Indemni- 
ty Co. v. MQpre, Civ.App., 102 S. 
W.2d. 441, error refused Traders 
& General Ins. Co. v. Lincecum, 
Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 549, reversed 
on other grounds 107 S.W.2d 585, 
130 Tex. 220. 

33 C.J. p 1166 note 5. 

47. CaL Yule v. Miller, 252 P. 733, 
80 CaLApp. 609. 

La. Ethridge-Atkins Corporation v. 
Abraham, App., 160 So. 817. 

Tex. Foxworth-Galbraith Lumber 
Co. v. Southwestern Contracting! 
Corporation, Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d 
221, error refused. 

Issues broadened by consent see su- 
pra 50. 

43. Mont Loeb v. Kamak, 1 Mont* 

152. 
33 C.J. p 1166 note 4. 



49. Idaho. Berg v. Aumock, 59 P. 

2d 726, 56 Idaho 798. 
Mo. Bieser v. Woods, 150 S.W.2d 

524, 236 Mo. App. 126, transferred, 

see 147 S.W.2d 656, 347 Mo. 437. 
Wis.^-City of Wauwatosa v. Union 

Free High School Dist. of Town 

and City of Wauwatosa, 2-52 N.W. 

351, 214 Wis. 35. 
33 C.J. p 1166 note 10. 
Limitation of default judgment to 

amount demanded see infra 214. 

Amendment increasing amount 

Where, in an action on a policy, 
plaintiff filed an amended petition 
increasing the original amount sued 
for, it was held not error to permit 
recovery in the increased amount, 
defendant having admitted that 
plaintiff's claim amounted to such 
sum. Investors' Mortg. Co. v. Ma- 
rine & Motor Ins. Co. of America, 
99 So. 486, 155 La. 627. 

Statutory double damages 

In an action brought under a stat- 
ute allowing double damages, where 
plaintiff alleges that he has been 
damaged in a certain amount for 
which he asks judgment and for all 
other and proper relief according to 
the statute, the court may render 
judgment for double the actual dam- 
ages assessed by the jury, although 
there was no formal prayer in the 
complaint for double damages. Car- 
penter v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 95 S. 
W. 985, 119 Mo.App. 204. 

In California 

(1) The supreme court has held 
that recovery in excess of the 
amount demanded in the complaint 
is unauthorized, although an answer 
has been filed. Meisner v. Mcln- 
tosh, 269 -P. 612, 205 Cal. 11. 

(2) However, there is some lower 
court authority holding that a judg- 
ment in excess of the amount de- 
manded is not erroneous where an 
answer has been filed. McKesson v. 
Itepp, 217 P. 802, 62 CaLApp. 619 
Kimball v. Swenson, 196 P. 781, 51 
CaLApp. 361. 

(3) Amount erroneously demanded 
in cross complaint was held immate- 
rial, where relief granted was con 

s .s tent with law and embraced with* I 

135 



in issues. Du Pont v. Allen, 294 OP. 
409, 110 CaLApp. 541. 

50. Idaho. Independent School 
Dist. No. 22 of Washington Coun- 
ty v. Weiser Nat. Bank, 263 P. 
997, 45 Idaho 554. 

Ky, Johnson v. Bngle, 67 S.W.2d 
938, 252 Ky. 634. 

Mo. Zweifel v. Lee-Schermen Real- 
ty Co., App., 173 S.W.2d 690. 

Okl. Electrical Research Products 
v. Haniotis Bros., <39 P.2d 42, 170 
Okl. 150. 

Tex. Albaugh-Wright Lumber Co. 
v. Henderson, Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 
228. 

Particular items held not allowable 

(1) Loss of rent. Love v. Nash- 
ville Agr. & Normal Inst, 6 Tenn. 
App. 104. 

(2) Uncollected premiums. Fidel- 
ity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New 
York v. Jackson, 181 S.W.2d 625, 181 
Tenn. 453. 

(3) Market value of accessories. 
Brooks -Supply Co. v. First State 
Bank of Blectra, Tex.Civ.App., 292 
S.W. 631. 

51. Mo. Zweifel v. Lee-Schermen 
Realty Co., App., 173 -S.W.2d 690. 

52. Fla. Florida East Coast Ry. 
Co. v. Acheson, 140 So. 467, 102 
Fla, 15, certiorari denied 52 S.Ct. 
407, 285 U.S. 551, 76 L.Ed. 941. 

111. McNeff v. White Eagle Brewing 
Co., 13 N.E.2d 493, 294 Ill.App. 
37. 

33 C.J. p 1166 note 8. 

53. Ala. Jones v. Belue, 200 So. 
886, 241 Ala. 22. 

Cal. Marsh v. Arch Rib Truss Co., 

133 P.2d 412, 56 Cal. App. 2 d 811. 
111. Yellow Cab Co. v. Newberry 

Library, 252 IlLApp. 5 84. 
Recovery for partial loss 

Recovery may be had for a par- 
tial insurance loss, although the dec- 
laration claims for a total loss and 
there is no proof of an abandonment. 
Watson v. Insurance Co. of North 
America, 4 Dall., Pa,, 283, 1 L.Ed. 
835. 
Recovery pro tanto 

Where part of charge set forth 
in the declaration and proved shows 
ight of fiction, plaintiff is entitled 
_o recover pro tanto. Pickett v. 



54 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



or complaint improperly claims treble damages tin- 
der a statute. 54 A judgment for less than the prcv>f 
requires, however, is erroneous, 55 and, where plain- 
tiff is entitled to the entire amount sued for or 
else to nothing at all, a judgment for a part only 
is erroneous. 56 

Ad damnum clause. According to some authori- 
ties, the amount of recovery is limited by the ad 
damnum clause of the pleading. 57 According to 
others, a judgment for the amount shown due by the 
declaration or petition may be given, although it is 
greater than the damages laid in the ad damnum 
clause proper. 5 * Where the judgment is greater 
than the amount shown due by the pleading, it is 
erroneous, although within the amount laid in the 
ad damnum clause. 59 

Attorney's fees. An allowance of attorney's fees 
must be supported by the pleadings 60 and proof. 61 
Even where an allowance for attorney's fees is 



proper, the allowance should not be in excess of 
the amount demanded or prayed, 62 and in any event, 
where attorney's fees are not involved in the action 
or embraced by the pleadings, the judgment should 
not award as such fees more than the amount re- 
quired to be taxed as costs. 63 

Installment payments. In a suit on an obligation 
payable in installments, a judgment awarding re- 
covery for installments falling due between the 
filing of the suit and the date of the judgment must 
be supported by the pleadings ; 64 but, under appro- 
priate pleadings, the inclusion of such installments 
in the judgment has been held proper. 65 

Set-off or counterclaim. In the absence of an 
agreement by the parties, 66 the court should not 
allow set-offs, credits, or deductions because of 
matters not pleaded or litigated. 67 The amount of 
a set-off or counterclaim asserted by defendant can- 
not exceed that set forth or claimed in his plead- 



Kuchan, 1A8 N.E. 667, 323 111. 138, 
49 A.L.R. 499. 

54. Colo. Cramer v. Oppenstein, 27 
P. 713, 16 Colo. 495. 

33 C.J. p 1166 note 12. 

55. Mo. Cable v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 128 S.W.2d 1123, 233 Mo. 
App. 1093. 

N.C. Corpus Juris quoted in Simms 
v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559, 
221 N.C. -379. 

35 C.J. p 1164 note 98. 

56. N.Y. Community Oil Co. v. 
Guido, 62 N.Y.S.2d 465. 

33 C.J. p 1164 note 99. 

57. Fla.Woods-Hoskins- Young Co. 
v. Stone & Baker Const Co., 114 
So. 366, 94 Fla. 586. 

Mass. Sullivan v. Jordan, 86 N.E.2d 

387, 310 Mass. 12. 
Mich. Detroit Trust Co. v. Lange, 

255 N.W. 320, 267 Mich. 69 

Daines v. Tarabusi, 229 N.W. 422, 

250 Mich. 217. 

58. Ky. Gilbert v. Berryman, 255 
S.W. 839, 200 Ky. 824. 

Tex. Cretien v. Kincaid, Civ.App., 
84 "S.W.2d 109"4, affirmed Kincaid v. 
Cretien, 111 -S.W.2d 1098, 130 
Tex. 513 Goodrich v. First Nat. 
Bank, Civ.App., 70 -S.W.2d 609, er- 
ror refused. 

33 C.J. p 1166 notes 4 [a] (2), 6. 

59. U.S. H. H.' Hornfeck & Sons 
v. Anderson, C.C.A.N.Y., 60 F.2d 
38. 

Mich. Walz v. Peninsular Fire Ins. 
Co. of America, 191 N.W. 230, 221 
Mich. 326, reheard 194 N.W. 124, 
22# Mich. 417. 

33 C.J. p 1166 note 7* 

60. Cal. Atkins v. Hughes, 282 P. 
787, 208 Cal. 508 McCain T. 
Burch, 267 OE>. 748, 92 CaLApp. 141. 

HI.: 'Peterson v. 'Evans, 6 N.E.2d 
520, 288 ULApp. 623. 



La. Huff v. Fitzsimmons, 132 So. 
257, 15 La.App. 441. 

Mo. Burns v. Ames Realty Co., 
App., 31 S.W.2d 274. 

.Tex. Himes v. Himes, Civ.App., 55 
S.W.2d .181. 

Utah. Skeen v. Smith, 286 P. 633, 75 
Utah 464. 

33 C.J. p 1164 note 1 [d]. 

Attorney's fees held proper 

Idaho.-nColorado Nat. Bank of Den- 
ver v. Meadow Creek Live Stock 
Co., 211 P. 1076, 36 Idaho 509. 

Tex. East Texas Title Co. v. Parch- 
man, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 497, er- 
ror dismissed. 

33 C.J. p 1166 note 13 [a]. 

61. Fla. Jackson v. Walker, 126 
So. 7(46. 

Mo. Globe American Corporation v. 

Miller, 131 S.W.2d 340, 2:34 Mo. 

App. 25;3. 
33 C.J. p 1164 note 1 [d] (4). 

62. Cal. Hartke v. Abbott, 6 P.2d 
578, 119 CaLApp. 439. 

Kan. Wellington v. Mid-West Ins. 
Co., 212 P. 892, 112 Kan. 687. 

63. Ky. Logan County Fiscal Court 
v. Childress, 243 S.W. 1038, 196 Ky. 
1. 

64. Tenn. OPhifer v. .Mutual Ben. 
Health & Accident Ass'n, 148 S.W. 
2d 17, 24 Tenn.App. 600. 

65. Wis. Numbers v. Union Mortg. 
Loan Co., 247 N.W. 442, 211 Wis. 
30. 

Payment of annuity until satisfac- 
tion of judgment 

Where insured prayed for monthly 
annuity accruing until Judgment and 
for general relief, court could prop- 
erly direct that insurer pay until 
satisfaction of judgment Manuel v. 
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., LeuApp., 
13*9 So. 548. 

136 



66. Minn. Oolby v. Street, 195 N. 
W. 34, 155 Minn. 157. 

Offer by plaintiff to make deduc- 
tion 

Although defendant, sued for 
wrongful detention of an automobile 
repaired by him, did not counter- 
claim for the amount due for re- 
pairs, but plaintiff offered to deduct 
such amount from the damages al- 
lowed, the amount due for repairs 
should be deducted from the judg- 
ment. Ledwell v. Entire Service 
Corporation, 2-31 N.Y.S. 565, 224 App. 
Div. 43i3, affirmed 170 N.E. 188, 252 
N.Y. 548. 

67. Oal. Hesse v. Commercial 
Credit Co., 275 P. 970, 97 Cal.App. 
600. 

Minn. Colby v. Street, 19-3 N.W. 

.34, 155 IMinn. 157. 
Miss. S. M. Weld & Co. v. Austin, 

65 So. 247, 107 Miss. 279. 
N.J. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hart- 
ford, Conn. v. Conway, ,158 A. 480, 
109 N.J.Eq. 628. 

Teac. Moss v. Thompson, Civ.App., 
72 S.W.2d '875-^American Grocery 
Co. v. Union Sugar Co., Civ.App., 
246 S.W. 418. 
Credit for payment by codefendant 

In conversion, where a third par- 
ty's lien on converted chattel is 
paid by codefendant of* converter, 
such payment cannot be credited to 
converter, where pleadings authorize 
no such relief. Brooks Supply Co. 
v. Gallinger, Tex.Civ,App., 279 S. 
W. 524. 
Damage not shown 

Judgment authorizing defendants 
to set off against notes for pastur- 
age shortage in acreage must be re- 
versed, in absence of evidence of 
damage by shortage. Hutchison v. 
Hamilton, Tex.ConouApp., 14 S.W.2d 
823. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



ings, 68 notwithstanding the proof shows that he is 
entitled to more. 69 

Effect of excessiveness; correction. A judgment 
which is merely excessive under the pleadings and 
proofs, although erroneous and liable to be re- 
versed, is not on that account void, 70 and, where 
the excess is very small, the maxim de minimis non 
curat lex applies. 71 An excessive judgment may 
generally be corrected by modification either in the 
trial court or on appeal, 72 and usually the party re- 
covering an excessive judgment is permitted to re- 
mit the excess and take a judgment for the proper 
amount. 7 ** 

b. Interest 
An allowance of Interest should be supported by the 



pleadings and proof; but In some Instances Interest has 
been held allowable, although the complaint contained 
no prayer therefor and the judgment was thereby brought 
above the ad damnum clause.' 

In order that a party may be entitled to interest, 
he should make such a case by his pleadings and 
proof as calls for its allowance. 74 Where such a 
case is made out, however, an allowance of interest 
is proper ;?5 and it has been held that, where in- 
terest is allowable, judgment therefor may be ren- 
dered, although interest is not demanded or prayed 
for in the complaint, 76 thereby bringing the judg- 
ment above the ad damnum clause. 77 A judgment 
allowing interest must be in conformity with the 
pleadings and proof with respect to the rate of in- 
terest 78 and the date from which it is to be comput- 
ed. 



68- Ala. Bradford v. Lawrence, 94 

So. 103, 208 Ala, 248. 
N.J. Metropolitan Lumber Co. v. 

Mullor, 129 A. 148. 

A reconventional demand cannot 
be allowed in an amount exceeding 
that claimed. Continental Supply 
Co. v. Hoell, 129 So. 522, 170 La, 
898 Homes v. James Buckley & 
Co., 116 So. 218, 165 La. 874 Lady 
Ester Lingerie Corp. v. Goldstein, 
La.App. v 21 So.2d 398. 
Judgment held proper 
N.C. Casper v. Walker, 188 S.E. 

99, 210 N.C. 838. 

69. Ky. Pictorial Review Co. v. 
Smith, 300 S.W. 871, 222 Ky. 323. 

70. U.S. Huddleston v. Dwyer, C.C. 
A.OkL, 145 F.2d ail. 

Ga. Lang v. South Georgia Inv. Co., 

U44 S.E. 149, 38 Ga.App. 430. 
Mass. Sullivan v. Jordan, 36 N.B.2d 

387, 310 Mass. 12. 
Mich. Corpus Juris cited in Baran- 

cik v. Schreiber, 224 N.W. 848, 

349, 246 Mich. 361. 
Mont. Thompson v. Chicago, B. & 

Q. R. Co., 25i3 P. 813, 78 Mont 

170. 
Mo. Drake v. Kansas City Public 

Service Co., 41 S.W.2d 1066, 226 

Mo.App. 365, rehearing denied 54 

S.W.2d 427. 
Vt. Santerre v. Sylvester, 189 A. 

159, 108 Vt 435. 
33 C.J. p 1167 note 14. 
Hot jurisdictional 

Error in granting judgment In ex- 
cess of amount alleged in ad dam- 
num clause of declaration is not ju- 
risdfetional. Detroit Trust Co. v. 
Lange, 255 N.W. 320, 267 Mich. 69. 

71. Mich. Bowen v. Rutland School 
Dist No. 9, 36 Mich. 149. 

33 C.J. p 1167 note 16. 

72. Ala. 'Lister v. Vowell, 25 So. 
564, 122 Ala. 264. 

33 C.J. p 1167 note 18. 

73. Mass. Sullivan v. Jordan, 36 
N.E.2d 387, 810 Mass. 12. 



Tex. Hartford Accident & Indem- 
nity Co. v. Moore, Civ.App., 102 S. 
W.2d 441, error refused. 

33 C.J. p 1167 note 20. 

74. La. Crowe v. Equitable Life 
Assur. 8ot>. of U. S., 154 So. 52, 
179 La. 444 Roussel v. Railways 
Realty Co., 115 So. 742, 165 La. 
556 Merchants' & Farmers' Bank 
& Trust Co. v. Hammond Motors 
Co., 113 So. 763, 164 La, 57. 

Mo. Kansas City v. Haivorson, 177 

S.W.2d 495, 352 Mo. 280 Motor 

Acceptance v. Clayton, App., 119 

S.W.2d 996. 

Nev.^Gray v. Coykendall, 6 P.2d 

442, 53 Nev. 466. 

Okl.-^Central Nat Oil Co. v. Conti- 
nental Supply Co., 249 P. 347, 119 
Okl. 1-90. 

Tex. West Lumber Co. v. Hender- 
son, Com.App., 252 S.W. 1044 
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Llde, Civ. 
App., U44 S.W.2d 685, error dis- 
missedLone Star Finance Corpo- 
ration v. Schelling, CivJLpp., 80 S. 
W.2d 358 Berryman v. Norfleet, 
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 722, error dis- 
missedHumble Oil & Refining 
Co. v. Kishi, Civ.App., 299 S.W. 687 
Brooks Supply Co. v. First State 
Bank of Electra, Civ.App., 292 S. 
W. 631 Sparrow v. Tillman, Civ.. 
App., 283 S.W. 877 Kuehn v. 
Kuehn, Civ.App., 259 S.W. 290. 
33 C.J. p 1168 note 26. 
failure to attach note or pray for 

interest thereon 

Judgment should not include in- 
terest where note sued on was not 
attached to petition, it was not al- 
leged that note bore interest, and 
no interest was prayed for. Sentney 
v. Sinclair, 286 P. 269, 130 Kan. 360. 

75. U.S. Anglo California Nat 
Bank of San Francisco v. Dazard, 
C.C.A.Cal., 106 F.2d 693, certiorari 
denied 60 S.Ct. 379, 308 U.*S. 624, 
84 L.Ed. 521Brown Paper Mill 
Co. v. Frazier, C.C.A.La., 76 F.2d | 
65 Alabama Chemical Co. y. In- 1 

137 



ternational Agr. Corporation, C.C. 
A.Ala., 35 F.2d 907, certiorari de- 
nied 50 S.Ct 240, 281 U.S. 727, 74 
L.Ed. 1144. 

Ga. Lang v. South Georgia Inv. Co., 
144 S.B. 149, 38 Ga.App. 430. 

Tex. Leath v. Prince, Civ.App., 278 
S.W. 865. 

33 C.J. p 1166 note 2. 

76. Cal. Deaux v. Trinidad Bean & 
Elevator Co., 47 P.2d 535, 8 Cal. 
App.2d 149. 

Mich. Hollingsworth v. Liberty 
Life Ins. CO. of Illinois, 127 N.W. 
908, 241 Mich. 675. 
Where an answer has been filed, 
the court may allow interest al- 
though it was not prayed for In the 
complaint, if it is consistent with 
the case made by the complaint and 
embraced within the issues. Per- 
ry v. Magneson, 279 P. 650, 207 Cal. 
617. 

77. Mich. Thomson Spot Welder 
Co. v. Oldberg Mfg. Co., 2^0 N.W. 
93, 256 Mich. 447 Hollingsworth 
v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. of Illinois, 
217 N.W. 908, 241 Mich. 675. 

78. Mo. Krause v. Spurgeon, App., 
256 S.W. 1072. 

Tex. Douglas v. Smith, Civ.App., 

2-97 S.W. 767. 
33 C.J. p 1168 note 26 tb]. 

79. Ky. Furnace Gap Coal Co. v. 
White, 74 S.W.2d 4, 255 Ky. 351. 

Mo. Von Schleinitz v. North Hotel 

Co., 23 S.W.2d 64, i323 Mo. 1110. 
S.C. Molony & Carter Co. v. Pennell 

& Harley, 169 S.E. 283; 169 S.C. 

462. 

C.J. p 1'168 note 26 CbL 
Due date 

Where petition alleged sale of 
stock of goods on specified date, and 
that balance due was to be paid a 
certain number of days thereafter, 
judgment allowing interest from the 
date payment was to be made was 
in accord with pleadings. rKavune- 
das v. Long, 265 S.W. 790, 205 Ky. 
321. 



555 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



55. Conformity to Verdict, Decision, and 
Findings in General 

a. In general 

b. Special verdict, decision, or findings 

a. In General 

A Judgment must be supported by, and conform to, 



the verdict, decision, or findings In all substantial par, 
tlculars. 

It is a well-established principle of law, applica- 
ble to both cases tried by the courtso and cases tried 
by a jury, 81 that the judgment must be supported 
by, 82 and conform to, 8 * the verdict, decision, or 
findings in all substantial particulars. In accord- 



so, N.Y. Troughton v. Digmore 

Holding Co., 173 N.T.S. 659, 105 

Misc. 638. 
Tex. El Continental Pub. Co. v. 

Blumenthal, Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 

1056. 

81. Constitutional guaranty of Jury 
trial is violated if the judgment 
does not conform to the verdict. 
North v. Atlas Brick Co., Tex.Com. 
App., 15 S.W.2d 59, motion granted 
in part 16 S.W.2d 519. 

82. U.S. HI Dorado Terminal Co. v. 
General American Tank Oar Cor- 
poration, C.OA.CaL, 104 P.2d 903, 
reversed on other grounds 60 S.Ct. 
325, 308 U.S. 422, 84 L.Ed. 361, re- 
hearing denied 60 S.Ct. 465, 309 U. 
S. 694, 84 L.Ed. 1035. 

Cal. Berg v. Berg, 132 P.2d 871, 
56 Cal.App.2d 495 Alphonzo B. 
Bell Corporation v. Listle, 130 P. 
2d 251, 55 Cal.App.2d 300 Mar- 
desich v. C. J. Hendry Co., 125 P. 
2d 595. 51 Cal.App.2d 567 Kittle 
Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 47 P.2d 1089, 
8 Cal.App.2d 504 Magarian v. 
Moser, 42 P.2d 385, 5 Cal.App.2d 
208 Mitchell v. Rasey, $3 P.2d 
1056, 13-9 CaLApp. 350 Cameron 
v. Feather River Forest Homes, 
33 P.2d 884, 159 Cal.App. 373 
Nestor v. Burr, 12 P.2d 479, 124 
CaLApp. 369 McCain v. Burch, 
267 P. 748, 92 CaLApp. 141. 

Conn. Gulf Oil Corporation of Penn- 
sylvania v. Newton, 31 A.2d 462 
130 Conn. 37. 

Fla. Hoyt v. Evans, 109 Bo. 311, 91 
Fla, 1053. 

Idaho. Hand v. Twin Falls County 
236 P. 536, 40 Idaho 638. 

Ind. Gibraltar Realty Co. v. Secur- 
ity Trust Co., 136 N.E. 636, 192 
Ind. 502 Indianapolis Real Estate 
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, 98 
Ind.App. 72. 

Mass.-rPerkins v. Becker's Conserv- 
atories, 61 N.B.2d 833. 

N.T. J. C. Whritenour Co. v. Co 
lonial Homes Co., 205 N.T.S. 299 
209 App.Div. 676. 

NX. Glenn v. Gate City Life Ins 
Co., 18 S.E.2d 113, 220 N.C. 672. 

UP. Corpus Juris quoted in. Miel 
carek v. Riske, 21 N.W.2d 218, 221 

Okl. Winters v. Birch, 36 P.2d 907 
169 Okl. 237. 

Or. Maeder Steel Products Co. v 
Zanello, 220 P. 155, 109 Or. 56 

Tex. City of Temple v. ^itchel 
Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 959 Brad 
dock v. Brockman, Civ. App., 29 S 



W.2d 811 Weathered" v. Meek, Civ. 
App., 268 S.W. 516. 

3 C.J. P 1170 note 37. 
The pleadings may "be considered 

n connection with the verdict, and 

acts admitted therein may be con- 

idered in aid of the verdict in or- 
der to support the judgment. Law 
v. Coleman, 159 S.E. 679, 173 Ga, 68 

C.J. p 1174 notes 66, 67. 
Judgments held supported *y verdict 
or findings 

Cal. Mirich v. Underwriters at 
Lloyd's London, 149 P.2d 19, 64 
Cal.App.2d 522 Smoll v. Webb, 
130 P.2d 77-3, 55 CaLApp.2d 456 
Honsberger v. Durfee, 130 P.2d 
189, 55 Cal.App.2d 68 Murray v. 
Babb, 86 P.2d 146, 30 Cal.App.2d 
301 Easterly v. Cook, 35 P.2d 
164, 140 CaLApp. 115 McCon- 
ville v. Superior Court within and 
for Los Angeles County, 248 P. 
553, 78 CaLApp. 203 Rosener v. 
Hanlon Dry Dock & Shipbuilding 
Co., 236 P. 183, 71 CaLApp. 767 
Munford v. Humphreys, 229 P. 
860, 68 CaLApp. 530. 

Conn. Butler v. Solomon, 18 A.2d 
685, 127 Conn. 613. 

Ga ._- Odom v. Attaway, 162 IS.E. 279, 
173 Ga. 883 Cason v. United Real- 
ty & Auction Co., 0.31 S.E. 161, 161 
Ga. 374. 

Ind. Peru Heating Co. v. Lenhart, 
95 N.E. 680, 48 Ind.App. "319. 

Ky. Asher v. Gibson, 250 S.W. 860, 
199 Ky. 175. 

N.C In re Escoffery, 3 S.B.2d 425, 
216 N.C. 19. 

Tex. Starr v. Schoellkopf Co., 113 
S.W.2d 1227, 131 Tex. 263. 

83. U.S. Mutual Ben. Health & Ac- 
cident Ass'n v. Thomas, C.C.A. 
Ark., 123 F.2d 353--Manjon v. Le 
bron, C.C.A.Puerto Rico, 23 F.2d 
266. 

Alaska. Corpus Juris cited in 
Mitchell v. Beaver Dredging Co. 
8 Alaska 566, 582. 

Ariz. Rodriauez v. Childress, 27 
P. 921, 4 Ariz. 489. 

Ark. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co 
v. Sharp, 108 S.W.2d 579, 194 Ark. 
405 ^Powers v. Wood Parts Corpo 
ration, 44 S.W.2d 324, 184 Ark. 
1032. 

Cal. Prothero v. Superior Court o 
Orange County, 238 P. 357, 19 
Cal. 43'9 Cappelmann v. Toung 
App., 165 P.2d 950 Berg v. Berg 
132 iP.2d 871, 56 Cal.App.2d 495 
Gossman v. Gossman, 126 P.2 
178. 52 Cal.App.2d 184 Phipps v 

138 



Superior Court in and for Alameda 
County, 89 P.2d 698 Leeper v. 
Ginsberg, 85 P.2d 548, 29 CaLApp. 
2d 722 Magarian v. Moser, 42 P. 
2d -385, 5 Cal.App.2d 208 Nestor 
V. Burr, 12 P.2d 479, 124 Cal.App. 
369 Holland v. Bank of Italy Nat. 
Trust & (Savings Ass'n, 1 'P.2d 
10-31, 115 CaLApp. 472 Slater v. 
Mayzie, 230 P. 453, 69 CaLApp. 87. 
Colo. Mooney v. Carter, 160 P.2d 
390 Meyer v. Milliken, 76 P.2d 
420, 101 Colo. 564, certiorari de- 
nied Milliken v. Meyer, 59 S.Ct 63, 
305 U.S. 598, 83 L.Ed. 379, reversed 
on other grounds 61 S.Ct. 339, 311 
U.S. 457, 84 L.Ed. 278, 132 A.L.R. 
1395, rehearing denied 61 S.Ct. 
548, 312 U.S. 712, 85 L.Ed. 1143, 
mandate conformed to HI P-2d 
2>32, 107 Colo. 295. 

(ja. Gray v. Junction City Mfg. Co., 
22 S.E.2d 847, 195 Ga. -33 Law v. 
Coleman, 159 S.E. 679, 173 Ga. 68 
Dinsmore v. Holcomb, 144 S.E. 
780. 167 Ga. 20 Belts v. Mathews, 
34 S.E.2d 729, 72 Ga.App. 678 
Frank E. Wood Co. v. Colson, 158 
S.E. 533, 43 Ga.App. 265 Georgia 
Motor Bales v. Wade, 138 S.B. 
797, 37 Ga.App. 24. 
Idaho. Radermacher v. Eckert, 123 

P.2d 426, 63 Idaho 531. 
HL De Leuw, Cather & Co. v. City 

of Joliet, App., 64 N.E.2d 779. 
Ind. Scheiring v. Baker, 177 N.E. 
866, 202 Ind. 678 Elliott v. Gard- 
ner, 46 N.E.2d 702, -113 -Ind.App. 
47 Feuerstein v. Baumeister, 8 
N.E.2d 412, 108 Ind.App. 4"32 
Fisher v. Rosander, 151 N.E. 12, 8*4 
Ind.App. 694 Mansfield v. Hinckle, 
139 N.B. 700, 81 Ind.App. 6. 
y. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of 
U. S. v. Goble, 72 S.W.2d 35, 254 
Ky. 614 Meraman v. Caldwell, 8 
B.Mon. 32, 46 Am.D. 537. 
Mont Corpus Juris quoted in 
Morse v. Morse, 154 P.2d 982, 984. 
Neb. Crete Mills v. Stevens, 253 N. 

W. 453, 120 Neb. 794. 
N.T. In re Braasch's Ex'rs, 202 N. 
T.S. 844, 208 App.Div. 745 Brown 
v. Shyne, 206 N.Y.S. 310, 123 Misc. 
851 Basile v. Basile, 197 N.T.S. 
668, 120 Misc. 63 Troughton v. 
Digmore Holding Co., 173 N.T.S. 
65*9, 105 Misc. 638. 
.C.- White v. Dixie Fire Ins. Co., 
Greensboro, 36 S.E.2d 923 Tan- 
cey v. North Carolina State High- 
way and (Public Works Commis- 
sion, 19 6.E.2d 489, 221 N.C. 185 
(Page Supply Co. v. Horton, 17 S. 
E.2d <*. 220 N.C. STS Sitterson 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



55 



ance with this principle it has been held that, where 
the verdict grants alternative forms of relief, the 
judgment must make like provision. 84 So, where 
the verdict is joint, the judgment must be joint 85 
unless plaintiff remits the damages as to one of de- 
fendants 86 or dismisses the action as to him, 8 ? or 
the court grants him a new trial ; 88 and, where the 
verdict is several, the judgment must be several. 89 

As a qualification of the rule it may be stated 



that the judgment should conform to the real and 
substantial finding rather than to the literal form 
of expression of the verdict 90 Where the finding 
reported could not possibly be arrived at without al- 
so finding another fact not expressed but necessarily 
included in the verdict, judgment can be rendered 
as though that fact had been positively found. 91 
Superfluous matter in a verdict may be disregard- 
ed ; 92 and, where the verdict or finding is on an 



v. Sitterson, 131 S.B. 641, 191 N. 
C. 319, 51 A.L.R. 760 -Durham v. 
Davis, 88 S.E. 435, 171 N.C. 308. 

N.D. Corpus Juris quoted in, Miel- 
<sarek v. Riske, 21 N.W.2d 218, 221. 

Okl. Winters v. Birch, 36 P.2d 907, 
169 Okl. 237 Kuhl Motor Co. v. 
Wade, 1 P.2d 704, 151 Okl. 83. 

Or. Maeder Steel Products Co. v. 
Zanello, 220 P. 155, 109 Or. 562. 

Tenn. 'Allen v. Melton, 99 S.W.2d 
219, 20 Tenn.App. 387. 

Tex. Totton v. Smith, 113 S.W.2d 
517, 131 Tex. 219 North v. At- 
las Brick Co., Com.App., 13 S.W. 
2d 59, motion granted in part 16 
S.W.2d 519 Deal v. Craven, Com. 
App., 277 -S.W, 1046 St. Louis 
Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas 
v. Seale & Jones, Com.App., 267 S. 
W. 676 Johnson Aircrafts v. Wil- 
borh, Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 426 
Hamill & Smith v. Ogden, Civ.App., 
163 S.W.2d 725 Day v. Grayson 
County State Bank, Civ. App., 153 
S.W.2d 599 Southern Underwrit- 
ers v. Blair, Civ.App. f 144 S.W.2d 
641 Taylor v. Jones, Civ.App., 135 
S.W.2d 767, error dismissed, judg- 
ment correct JStrack v. Strong, 
Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 754, error dis- 
missed, judgment correct Chaffin 
v. Drane, Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 672 
Friske v. Graham, Civ.App., 128 
S.W.2d 139 Humble Oil & Refin- 
ing Co. v. Owings, Civ. App., 128 S. 
W.2d 67 Ostrom v. Jackson, Civ. 
App., 127 S.W.2d 987 Jones- 
O'Brien, Inc., v. Loyd, Civ.App., 
106 S.W.2d 1069, error dismissed 
Southern Underwriters v. Garie- 
py, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 760. er- 
ror dismissed Southern- Pine 
Lumber Co. v. Whiteman, Civ. 
App., 104 S.W.2d 635, error dis- 
missed Boyle v. Fisher, Civ.App., 
10-3 S.W.2d 866, error dismissed 
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Harris, 
Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 640, error 
dismissed Farmers & Merchants 
Nat. Bank v. Arrington, Civ.App., 
98 S.W.2d 378 Amarillo Transfer 
& Storage Co. v. De Shong, Civ. 
App., 82 S.W.2d -381 ^Parks v. 
Hines, Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 364, af- 
firmed Hines v. (Parks, 96 S.W.2d 
970, 128 Tex. 289 Smith v. El 
Paso & N. E. R. Co., Civ.A#p., 67 
S.W.2d 362, error dismissed Citi- 
zens' Nat Bank v. E. V. Graham 
& Co., Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 636 
Sociedad Union Mexicans, La Con- 



structora v. De Orona, Civ.App., 
288 S.W. 1111 Rogers v. City of 
Port Worth, Civ. App., 275 S.W. 
214 Standard Motor Co. v. Witt- 
man, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 186 
Sctoaff v. Wilson, Civ.App., 269 S. 
W. 140 Brown v. Knox, Civ.App., 
261 S.W. 791, affirmed Knox v. 
Brown, Com. App., 277 S.W. 91 
Metting v. Metting, Civ.App., 261 
S.W. 151, reheard 262 S.W. 188 
Weathered v. (Meek, Civ.App., 258 
S.W. 516. 

Vt. Ackerman v. Carpenter, 29 A.2d 
922, 113 Vt. 77 <Scampini v. Rizzi, 
172 A. 619, 106 Vt 281. 

13 C.J. p 798 note 6619 C.J. p 1210 
notes 26, 27, 30, p 1240 note 21 
24 C.J. p 885 note 4726 C.J. P 
570 note 2528 C.J. p 1036 note 
5433 C.J. p 144 note 84, p 1169 
note 3638 C.J. p 1190 note 6 
42 C.J. p 142 note 51, p 1287 note 
15 47 C.J. p 430 notes 74, 76, 77, 
p 1009 note 87. 

When intention of Jury is clear 
from language of verdict considered 
in connection with pleadings and 
evidence the court must make the 
judgment conform thereto. Yeoman 
r. Sherry, 52 P.2d 555, 10 CaLApp. 
2d 567 Curtis v. San Pedro Transp. 
Co., 52 P.2d 528, 10 Cal.App.2d 547. 

Tlie form of the verdict as re- 
corded, rather than the verdict 
which the Jury actually returned in- 
to court, governs in determining 
whether or not the judgment con- 
forms to the verdict. Grammer v. 
Wiggins-Meyer S. S. Co., 270 P. 759, 
126 Or. 694. 

Judgment* held in conformity to 
verdict or findings 

(1) Generally. 
Ala. Lawler v. Hyde, 161 So. 523, 

230 Ala. 467. 
Ariz. Golden Eagle-Bobtail Mines 

v. Valley Nat Bank, 138 iP.2d 289, 

60 Ariz. 400 Holcomb v. Clark, 

234 'P. 1075, 27 Ariz. 573. 
Cal. Gray v. Magee, 292 P. 157, 

108 Cal.App. 570 Fink & Behind- 

ler Co. T. Gavros, 257 P. 156, 83 

Cal.App. 582. 
Ga. Brown v. O'Neal, 1 S.E.2d 601, 

59 Ga.App. 560. 
Mass. Birnbaum v. Pamoukis, 17 

N.B.2d 885, 301 Mass. 559. 
Tex. Tipton v. Tipton, Civ. App., 140 

S.W.2d 865, error dismissed, Judg- 
ment correct 

139 



Wash. Deming v. Jones, 24 P.2d 85, 
173 Wash. 644 Rich v. Kruger, 
22S P. 1012, 130 Wash. 656. 
33 C.J. p 1169 note 36 [c], 

(2) Where jury found two sepa- 
rate verdicts, one for plaintiff on its 
complaint and the other for defend- 
ant on her counterclaim, court's ac- 
tion in subtracting judgment based 
on verdict rendered for defendant on 
counterclaim from judgment in fa- 
vor of plaintiff and rendering cor- 
rected judgment for the difference 
held proper as against contention 
that the judgment was unwarranted 
because not based upon a verdict of 
the jury. Creek v. Lebo Inv. Co., 48 
P.2d 792, 97 Colo. 250. 

84. Cal. Benson v. Olender, 246 P. 
345, 77 Cal.App. 287. 

85. Ark. Spears v. McKinnon, 270 
S.W. 524, 168 Ark. 357. 

Tex. Citizens' Railway & Light Co. 

v. Case, Civ.App., 138 S.W. 621. 
33 C.J. p 1171 note 40. 

86. Ala. Golding v. Hall, 9 Port. 
169. 

87. 111. Siltz v. Springer, 85 N.B. 
748, 236 111. 276. 

88. Iowa. Terpenning v. Gallup, 8 
Iowa 74. 

33 C.J. p 1171 note 43. 

89. Colo. Bartlett v. Hammond, 
230 P. 10-9, 76 Colo. 171. 

Pa. Wise v. Frey, Com.Pl., 22 West 

CO.L.J. 176. 
19 C.J. p 1210 note 2933 C.J. p 1171 

note 44. 

90. Tex. F. H. Vahlsing; Inc., v. 
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Civ.App., 
108 S.W.2d 947, error dismissed. 

33 C.J. p 1174 note 62. 

A trifling variance will not vitiate 
the judgment. Camden v. Haskill, -8 
Rand. 462, 24 Va. 462. 

Fact that ultimate fact was con- 
tained in "conclusions of law," rath- 
er than "findings of fact," held im- 
material. Bogan v. Hynes, C.C.A. 
Cal., 65 F.2d 52)4, certiorari denied 
54 S.Ct. 126, 290 U.S. 690, 78 LJEd. 
594. 

91. Ga. Gray v. Junction City 
Mfg. Co., 22 S.E.2d 847, 195 Ga. 
33. 

33 C.J. p 1174 note 63. 

92. Cal. Slayden v. O'Dea, 218 P. 
395, 191 Cal. 785. 



55 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



immaterial issue 93 or an issue of law, 84 judgment 
need not, and should not, be rendered thereon. On 
the other hand, the validity of a judgment will not 
be affected by incorporating immaterial matters 
therein. 95 

One real exception to the rule that judgments 
must conform to the verdict or findings consists of 
cases where a judgment is rendered non obstante 
veredicto, discussed infra 59-61. Another ex- 
ception exists in cases where trial by jury is not 
a matter of right and the verdict or findings of a 
jury are merely advisory, 9 ^ as in equity cases. 97 

Failure of the judgment to conform to the ver- 
dict has been held not to render the judgment void 
or inoperative, 88 and the proper remedy in such 
case is by a motion to modify the judgment," or 
according to some authority, 1 but not other, 2 by ap- 
peal or writ of error. 



After direction of a verdict, it has been held that 
the court may render the judgment demanded by 
the undisputed evidence, even though the directed 
verdict is insufficient to support the judgment. 8 

Conformity to conclusions of law. While it has 
been held that the trial court's conclusions of law 
must be predicated on, and find support in, the 
court's fact findings, and the judgment must follow 
the conclusions of law, 4 it has also been held that 
the judgment need not conform to findings or con- 
clusions of law, 5 except where it is entered by the 
clerk on a decision without further judicial action 
by the court 6 

Conformity to report of referee. If the report 
of a referee or master is accepted by the court, or 
sustained against exceptions, or judgment is en- 
tered thereon pursuant to statute, the judgment 
must conform to its findings and conclusions; to 



Ind. Mullet v. Blaine, 16 N.B.2d 

981, 105 Ind.App. 666. 
Ohio. Seal v. Gobel, SI Ohio Cir.Ct. 

286. 
33 C.J. p 1174 note 64. 

Attempted apportionment of dam- 
ages, following lump-sum verdict 
against defendants jointly liable, 
treated as surplusage. 
111. Fitzgerald v. Davis, 237 Ill.App. 

488. 
Mont. Bowman v. Lewis, 102 GP.2d 

1, 110 (Mont. 435. 

ecital that third party was en- 
titled to part of recovery held not 
required to be included in judgment. 
Gosnell v. Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n 
of Camden, N, J., Mo.App., 109 S.W. 
2d 59. 
Matter not properly disregarded 

Where judgment ordered that the 
verdict on specified issues should be 
set aside and that verdict on all re- 
maining Issues should be undisturb- 
ed and allowed to stand, If the court 
intended merely to strike out an- 
swers to the specified issues and to 
hold as matter of law that they 
were surplusage, it failed to do so. 
Page Supply Co. v. Horton, 17 S.E. 
3d 493, 220 N.C. (373. 

93. Tex. St. Paul Fire & Marine 
Ins. Co. v. Huff, Civ.App., 172 S. 
W. 755. 

33 C.OT. p 1174 note 69. 

Immaterial findings do not affect 

Judgment 
Mont. Rutherford v. J. B. Long & 

Co., 240 P. 821, 74 Mont. 4-20. 

94. Tex. Sovereign Camp W. O. W. 
V. Wagnon, Civ.App., 164 S.W. 
1082. 

95. Mich. Burkle v. Ingham Cir. 
Judge, 4 N.W. 192, 42 Mich. 513 
Taylor v. Gladwin, 40 Mich. 232. 
The mere addition of descriptive 

matter not found in the verdict is 



surplusage and immaterial?. Oliver's 
Garage v. Lowe, 103 So. 586, 212 Ala. 
60233 C.J. p 1174 note 65. 

96. N.Y. McClave v. Gibb, 52 N. 
B. 186, 157 N.T. 413 People ex 
rel. Flannery v. Worthing, 31 N. 
Y.S.-2d 79, 177 Misc. 545. 

97. Wyo. Jones v. Chicago, B. & Q. 
R. Co., 147 P. 508, 23 Wyo. 148. 

33 C.J. p 1174 note 60. 
Effect of jury verdict in equity see 
Equity 510. 

9a Ala. Herren v. Shelnutt, 110 
So. 697, -21 Ala.App. 589, certiorari 
denied 110 So. 699, 215 Ala. 355. 

N.'M. In re Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 
945,' 40 N.M. 423. 

N.T. Corn Exch. Bank v. Blye, 23 
N.E. 805, 119 N.T. 414. 

The defect may be waived 

N.T. Corn Exch. Bank v. Blye, su- 
pra. 
Pailure to conform to verdict and 

complaint held to affect validity of 

judgment so as to preclude appeal 

thereon. Spears v. Wise, 65 60. 786, 

187 Ala. 34619 C.J. p 1210 note 

31. 

99. Ind. Elliott v. Gardner, 46 N.E. 
2d 7012, 119 'Ind.App. 47 S. J. flPea- 
body Lumber Co. v. Northam, 184 
N.E. 794, 96 Ind.App. 197 Tri 
Lake Const. Co. v. Northam, 184 
N.E. 792, 96 Ind.App. 18*3. 

N.M. In re Field's Estate, 60 (P.2d 
945, 40 N.M. 423. 

N.T. Kenney v. Apgar, 93 3ST.T. 539. 

19 C.J. p 1211 note 3733 C.J. p 
1170 note 37 CdL p 1171 note 45. 

Amendment of judgment to conform 
to verdict or findings see infra 
243. 

l. Ky. Lykins v. Hamrick, 137 S. 

W. 8-52, 144 Ky. 80. 
N.M. In re Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 

945, 40 N.M. >42i3. 

140 



2. N.T. Kenney v. Apgar, 93 N.T. 
'539 People v. Goff, 52 N.T. 434. 

3. Tex. Zachary v. City of Uvalde, 
ConuApp., 42 S.W.2d 417 Zachary 
v. Home Owners 'Loan Corporation, 
Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 15-3, error dis- 
missed. 

4. Utah. Mason v. Mason, 160 P. 
2d 730 Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v. 
Mason, 160 P.2d 734 Parrott Bros. 
Co. v. Ogden City, 167 P. -807, -50 
Utah 512. 

3'3 C.J. p 1173 note 53 [c]. 

5. Cal. Mason v. Del Valle, 1 P. 
2d 419, 213 Cal. 30 Liuzza v. 
Bririkerhoff, $3 P.2d 976. 29 Cal. 
App.2d 1 Delmuto v. Superior 
Court in and for San Joaquin 
County, -6 P.2d 1007, 119 CaLApp. 
590. 

33 C.J. p 1173 note S3. 

Findings of fact will prevail over 
conclusions of law. Mount v. Dillon, 
138 S.W.2d 59, 200 Ark. 153. 
Erroneous conclusions of law 

A judgment supported by the facts 
found will not be reversed because 
not in conformity with erroneous 
conclusions of law. Freeman v. 
Robinson, 1'31 N.E. 75, 238 Mass. 449 
33 C.J. p 1173 note 55. 
Finding on mixed question of law 
and fact 

(1) The jury's finding on a mixed 
question of law and fact has been 
held to be binding on the court in 
rendering judgment. Lemm v. Mil- 
ler, Tex.Civ.App., 245 S.W. 90, re- 
versed on other grounds Miller v. 
Lemm, ConxApp., 276 S.W. 211. 

(2) However, the contrary has 
also been held. Hubert v. Collard, 
Tex.Civ.App., 141 B.W^d 677, error 
dismissed, judgment correct. 

8. Cal. Broder v. Conklin, 83 P. 
211, 98 Cal. 360. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



55 



depart from it in any essential matter will be re- 
versible error. 7 

b. Special Verdict, Decision, or Findings 

Whenever the Judgment Is based on a special ver- 
dict, decision, or findings, they must be sufficiently com- 
prehenslve, certain, and consistent to sustain the judg- 
ment and justify It as a matter of law. 

Whenever the judgment is based on a special ver- 



dict, decision, or findings, they must be sufficiently 
comprehensive, certain, and consistent to sustain the 
judgment and justify it as a matter of law. 8 As 
a general rule special findings cannot be aided by 
the evidence, 9 and the court cannot render a judg- 
ment on an issue submitted to the jury but not de- 
termined by their verdict, 10 no matter how clear 
and undiputed the evidence may be; 11 where the 
issues submitted to the jury are not determinative 



7. Ga. Owen v. S. P. Richards Pa- 
per Co., 3 S.E.2d 660, 188 Ga, 258. 

Mass. Battlsta v. F. W. Woolworth 
Co., 57 N.E.2d 552, 317 Mass. 179. 

Tex. Farley v. Ward, 1 Tex. 646. 

24 O.J. p 88'5 note 4833 C.J. p 117* 
note 58 34 C.J. p 237 note 8. 
Judgment held 9 properly rendered 

in accordance with findings. Levoy- 

sky v. Horvitz, 30 N.B.2d 411, 307 

Mass. 475. 

S. U.S. United Gas Public Service 
Co. v. Pardue, C.'C.A.La,, 78 F.2d 
929. 
Kan. Hajny v. Robinson Milling 

Co., 134 P.2d 398, 156 Kan. 506. 
.N.C. Morris v. Y. & B. Corporation, 
153 S.B. 3'35, 198 N.C. 719 Mer- 
chants' Nat. Bank v. Carolina 
Broom Co., 125 S.B. 12, IBS N.C. 
508. 

Tex. International-Great Northern 
R. Co. v. Casey, Com.App., 46 S.W. 
2d 669 Rodriguez v. Higginboth- 
am-Bailey-Logan Co., Civ.App., 
144 S.W.2d 993, reversed on other 
grounds 160 S.W.2d 234, 138 Tex. 
476 Kimbrow v. Fort Worth & 
D. C. R. Co., Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 
78, affirmed Fort Worth & D. C. 
Ry. Co. v. Kimbrow, 112 S.W.2d 
712. 131 Tex. 117 Parks v. Hines, 
Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 364, affirmed 
Hines v. Parks, 96 -S.W^d 970, 12* 
Tex. 289 Tips v. Barneburg, Civ. 
App., 276 -S.W. 932. 
33 C.J. p 1171 note 47. 

Finding's should be liberally con- 
strued to support the judgment, if 
possible. Clavey v. Loney, 251 P. 
2-32, 80 CaLApp. 2033 C.J. p 1172 
note 50 [b]. 

Where the findings are ambigu- 
ous, the court is authorized to ex- 
amine not only the charge, but the 
pleadings and evidence, and if, by 
-an examination of the record, the in- 
tention of the verdict can be ascer- 
tained such verdict, so construed, 
constitutes the proper basis for 
Judgment. Vincent v. Bell, Tex.Civ. 
App., 22 S.W.2d 753, error dismissed. 
^Inconsistent findings 

(1) It has been held that a judg- 
ment cannot be based on inconsist- 
ent findings. 

Oal. Los Angeles & Arizona Land 
Co. v. Marr, 200 P. 1051, 187 Cal. 
127. 

Tex. Maryland Casualty Co. v. 
Howie, Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 220, 



error dismissed Schaff v. Wilson, 
Civ.App., 269 S.W. 140 First Nat. 
Bank v. Chapman, Civ.App., 255 S. 
W. 807. 

(2) However, in cases of equita- 
ble cognizance it has been held that 
the decree rendered will be upheld, 
even though findings are inconsist- 
ent, if one or more supports the de- 
cree. State ex rel. Corbett v. Su- 
perior Court for King County, De- 
partment No. 10 thereof, 48 P.2d 617, 
183 Wash. 373 Ingle v. Ingle, 48 P. 
2d 576, 183 Wash. 234 Silverstone v. 
Hanley, 104 P. 767, 55 Wash. 458 
Howey v. Bingham, 44 P. 886, 14 
Wash. 450. 

(3) Separate findings should be 
considered together as being the ag- 
gregate finding of facts, where such 
consideration will tend to eliminate 
apparent inconsistency between the 
findings. Pryor v. Pryor, Okl., 168 
P.2d 375. 

Verdict or findings held sufficient 

Cal. Matmor Olive Co. v. Du Bois, 
150 P.2d 816, $5 Cal.App.2d 467 
Mirlch v. Underwriters at Lloyd's 
London, 149 P.2d 19, 64 Cal. App. 2d 
522 Klutts v. Rupley, 137 P.2d 
496, 58 Cal.App.2d 560 Gordon v. 
Santa Cruz Portland Cement Co., 
App., 130 P.2d 232 Winchester v. 
General Cab Co., 57 P.2d 206, 1-3 
Cal.Aj>p.2d 551 Metcalf v. Metro- 
politan Life Ins. Co., 37 P.2d 115, 
1 Cal. App. 2d 481, rehearing denied 
38 P.2d 401, 1 Cal.Apfe.2d 481 
Kohner v. National Surety Co., 287 
P. 510, 105 CaLApp. 430 Merkle 
v. Merkle, 258 P. 969, 85 CaLApp. 
87. 

Ga. Songster v. Toledo Mfg. Co.* 19 
<S.K2d 723, 193 Ga. 685. 

Ind. Menser v. Marshall Farmers' 
Home Fire Ins. Co., 121 N.E. 831, 
70 Ind.App. 211. 

Mo. Spallo v. Royal Ins. Co., (Lim- 
ited, of Liverpool, App., 125 S.W. 
'2d 967 Cantley v. American Sure- 
ty Co. of New York, 38 S.W.2d 739, 
225 Mo.App. 1146. 

Tex. American Nat. Ins. Co. v. 
Hammond, Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 432, 
error dismissed Hartford Acci- 
dent & Indemnity Co. v. -Shaw. Civ. 
App.r 8 S.W.2d 196, error dis- 
missed. 

Wis. State ex rel. Litzen v. Dillett, 
7 N.W.2d 599, 242 Wis. 1CT7, re- 
hearing denied 9 N.W.2d 50, 242 

141 



Wis. 107 Delap v. Liebenson, 208 
N.W. 937, 190 Wis. T3. 
Verdict or findings held insufficient 

(1) Generally. 

CaL Rossini v. St. Paul Fire & Ma- 
rine Ins. Co. of St Paul, Minn., 
188 P. 564, 182 Cal. 4115 Smith v. 
Young, 122 P.2d 624, 50 CaLApp.2d 
152. 

Tex. Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W.Sd 
207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on other 
grounds 172 S.W.2d 39, 141 Tex. 
*253 Robertson v. Connecticut 
General Life Ins. Co., Civ.App., 140 
S.W.2d 936 Federal Underwriters 
Exchange v. Dorman, Civ.App., 
137 S.W.2d 100, error dismissed, 
judgment correct American Nat. 
Ins. Co. v. Briggs, Civ.App., 90 S. 
W.2d 602, error dismissed Wag- 
staff v. North British & Mercantile 
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 550, 
error dismissed "Connecticut Gen- 

eral Life Ins. Co. v. Lockwood, 
Civ. App., 34 S.W.2d 245, error dis- 
missed Huey v. American Nat. 
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 340, 
reversed on other grounds Ameri- 
can Nat. Ins. Co. v. Huey, Com. 
App., 66 S.W.2d 690 Harris v. 
Western Union Telegraph Co., Civ. 
App., 281 S.W. 877 Compton v. 
Jennings Lumber Co., Civ.A'pp., 266 
S.W. 569 Kansas City Life Ins. 
Co. v. Jinkens, Civ.App., 20*2 S.W. 
772. 

(2) In view of inadequate in- 
struction. Humbird Cheese Co. v. 
Fristad, 242 N.W. 158, 208 Wis. 283 

Statement in Judgment that no 
satisfactory evidence was offered 
why attorney's lien should be can- 
celed was held conclusion not over- 
coming finding that attorney par- 
ticipated in satisfaction of judgment, 
destroying lien. Holbrook v. McKee, 
266 P. 187, 147 Wash, 388. 

9. Tex. Southern Pine Lumber Co. 

v. Whiteman, Civ~App., 104 S.W.2d 

635, error dismissed Tips v. 

Barneburg, Civ. App., 276 S.W. 932. 
33 C.J. p 1171 note 48. 
ia Tex. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. 

Connellee, Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 

10*20. 
33 C.J. p 1171 note 49. 

Theory of case not passed on. by 
Jury held not to afford basis for ren- 
dering judgment. Baker v. Reed, 
Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 214. 
11. CaL Corpus Juris cited in 



55 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



of the controversy, a judgment rendered thereon is 
erroneous. 12 

If the special verdict, decision, or findings are 
sufficient, the judgment must follow and accord 



with them, 18 and, as a general rule, cannot go be- 
yond them in awarding relief or settling the 'rights 
of the parties. 14 This rule has been held to apply 
even though the special verdict, decision, or findings 



Slater v. Mayzle, 230 P. 4-53, 455, 
69 CaLApp. 87. 
33 C.J. p 1171 note 49. 

12. N.C. Brown v. Daniel, 13 S.E. 
2d 623, 219 N.C. 349. 

13. U.S. Texas Compensation Ins. 
Co. v. Heard, C.C.A.Tex., 9*3 P.2d 
54 g Great Lakes Boat Building 
Corporation v. Jasperson, C.C.A. 
111., 71 F.2d 415. 

C a i. Cappelmann v. Young, App., 
165 P.2d 950 People v. Robin, 133 
P.2d 436, 56 Cal.App.2d S'SS Hall 
v. Citizens Nat. Trust & Savings 
Bank of Los Angeles, 128 P.2d 
545, 53 Cal.App.2d 625 Hogberg v. 
Landfield, 278 P. 907, 99 CaLApp. 
360. - 

C 1 . Meyer v. Milliken, 76 P.2d 420, 
101 Colo. 564, certiorari denied 
Milliken v. Meyer, 59 S.Ct. 63, 305 
U.S. 598, S3 L.Ed. 379, reversed on 
other grounds 61 S.Ct. 3-39, 311 U. 
S. 457, 84 L.Ed. 278, 132 A.L.R. 
1395, rehearing denied 61 S.Ct. 548, 
312 TJ.-S. 712, 8*5 L.Ed. 1143, man- 
date conformed to 111 P.2d 232, 107 
Colo. '295. 
Ga. Fleming v. Collins, 9 S.E.2d T57, 
190 Ga. 210 Law v. Coleman, 159 
S.E. 679, 173 Ga, 68 Hill v. Farm- 
ers' Bank of Forsyth, 121 S.E. 682, 
1-57 Ga, 457. 

Idaho. Boise Street Car Co. v. Van 

Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 502. 

Ind. City of Muncie v. Horlacher, 

53 N.E.2d 631, 222 Ind. -302. 

Kan. Lawson v. Lawrence Oil & 

Gas Co., 12 P.2d 711, 135 Kan. 740 

Black v. Black, 256 P. 995, 123 

Kan. 608 Custer v. Royse, 204 P. 

995, 110 Kan. 397. 

Miss. McCraven v. Doe, 23 Miss 

100: 
Mo. Bondurant v. Raven Qoal Co. 

App., 25 S.W.2d 566. ! 

N.C. Twitty v. Cochran, 199 S.E. 29 

214 N.C. 265. 

Okl. Pryor v. Pryor, 168 P.2d 875 
Davis v. Mose, 239 P. 447, 112 
Okl. 38. 

Tex. Edmiston v. Texas & N. O. R. 
Co., 138 S.W.2d 526, 135 Tex. 67 
North v. Atlas Brick Co., Com. 
App., 1*3 S.W.2d 59, motion grant 
ed in part 16 S.W,2d 519 Prideaux 
v. Roark, Com.App., 291 S.W. 868 
Hart v. Wilson, Com.App., 288 
S.W. 133 Deal v. Craven, Com 
App., 277 S.W. 1046 Knox v 
Brown, Com.App., 277 -S.W. 91, mo- 
tion overruled 277 S.W. 619 Mas- 
sie v. Hutcheson, Com. App., 270 S 
yy. 544 Barton v. Wood, Civ.App. 
162 S.W.*2d 147, error refused- 
Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v 
Schaffer, Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 328 
error refused Weston v. Duggan 



CivJlpp., 160 S.W.2d 1010 Rodri- 
guez v. Higginbotham-Bailey-Lo- 
gan qo., Civ.APp., 144 S.W.2d 993, 
reversed on other grounds 160 S. 
W.2d 234, 138 Tex. 476 Pearl- 
stone-Ash Grocery Co, v. Rembert 
Nat. Bank of Longview, Civ.App., 
135 S.W.2d 559, error refused- 
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Wheel- 
er, Civ.App. t 132 S.W.2d 456, error 
dismissed, Judgment correct 
American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 
Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 441 McCray 
Refrigerator 'Sales Corporation v. 
Johnson, Civ.App., 121 S.W.'2d 410, 
error dismissed Traders & Gen- 
eral Ins. Co. v. Milliken, Civ.App., 
110 S.W.2d 108 Hartford Accident 
& Indemnity Co. v. Moore, Civ. 
App., 102 S.W.2d 441, error refused 
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Harris, 
Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 640, -error 
dismissed Southern Old Line Life 
Ins. Co. v. Mims, Civ.App., 101 S. 
W.2d 396, error dismissed Garcia 
v. Garcia, Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 864 
Johnson v. Washington Nat Ins. 
Co., Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 696 Barn- 
hart Mercantile Co. v. Bengel, Civ. 
App., '77 S.W.2d 295 Means v. 
Floyd West & Co., Civ.App., 74 S. 
W.2d 518 Parks v. Hines, Civ. 
App., 68 S.W.2d 364, affirmed Hines 
v. Parks, 96 S.W.2d 970, 128 Tex. 
289 Texas Interurban Ry. 
Hughes, Civ.App., 34 S.W.2d 1103, 
affirmed Texas Interurban Ry. Co. 
v. Hughes, Com.App., 53 S.W.2d 
448 J. R. Milam Co. v. First Nat. 
Bank, Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 480, er- 
ror dismissed Vincent v. Bell, 
Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 753, error dis- 
missed Maledon v. Texas Em- 
ployers' Ins. Ass'n, Civ.App., 11 
S.W.2d 627, reversed on other 
grounds Texas Employers' Ins. 
Ass'n v. Maledon, Com.Ap,p., 27 S. 
W.2d 151 Perez v. Houston & T. 
C. R. Co., Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 782 
Sociedad Union Mexicana La Con- 
structora v. De Orona, Civ.App. 
288 S.W. 1111 Rumbo v. Rumbo 
Civ.App., 2*6 S.W. 957 S. T. Mat- 
thews & Son v. Manning, Civ.App. 
284 S.W. 314 JefEers v. Dent, Civ 
App., 280 S.W. 347 Fulwiler v 
Daniel, Civ.App., 279 S.W. 603 
Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum 
Co., Civ.App., 279 S.W. 597, re- 
versed on other grounds Magnolia 
Petroleum Co. v. Connellee, Com 
App., 11 S.W.2d 158, followed in 
Magnolia Petroleum Qo. v. Akin 
11 S.W.2d 1113, and rehearing de- 
nied 14 S.W.2d 1020 and 20 S 
W.2d 758 Rogers v. City of Fort 
Worth, Civ.App., 275 S.W. 21 
Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. 

142 



Co. v. Cabler. Civ.App., 271 S.W. 
441 Dowd v. Klock, Civ.App., 268 
S.W. 234, reversed on other 
grounds Klock v. Dowd, Com.App., 
280 S.W. 194 Davis v. Morris, Civ. 
App., 2 t 5'7 S.W. 328, corrected on 
motion to recall mandate 259 S. 
W. ! 592, and reversed on other 
grounds, Com.App.. 272 S.W. HOS 
St Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 
v. Huff, Civ.App., 172 S.W. 755. 

Utah. Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v. 
Mason, 160 P.2d 734 Mason v. Ma- 
son, 160 P.2d 730. 

Wis. State ex rel. Litzen v. Dillett, 
9 N.W.2d 80, 242 Wis. 107 State 
ex rel. Litzen v. Dillett 7 N.W.2d 
599, 242 Wis. 107, rehearing de- 
nied 9 N.W.2d 80, 242 Wis. 107. 

33 C.J. p 1172 note 50. 

Informal statements of court 

(1) A Judgment need not conform 
to informal statements of the court 
if it conforms to its formal findings. 
O'Brien v. Quirk, 204 IlLApp. 448. 

(2) Court's informal statement 
held not necessarily at variance with 
finding in decree. Manney v. Mc- 
Clure, 233 P. 158, 76 Qolo. 539. 

Judgments held to conform to find- 
ing's, etc. 

Ark. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hen- 
derson, 122 S.W.2d 580, 197 Ark. 
319. 

l. Matmor Olive Co. v. Du Bois, 
150 P.2d 816, 65 Cal.App.2d 467 
Honsberger v. Durfee, 130 P.2d 
189, 55 Cal.App.2d 68 Clavey v. 
Loney, 251 P. 232, 80 CaLApp. 20. 

G-a. Sangster v. Toledo Mfg. Co., 19 
S.B.2d 723, 193 Ga. 685 Bank of 
Louisville, Ga., v. Wheeler, 134 
S.E. 753, 162 Ga. 635. 

OkL <3hurchill v. Roberts, 22>5 P. 
535, 98 Okl. 295. 

Or. Myers v. Olds, 252 P. 342, 121 
Or. 249. 

Tex. Sfcroles v. Rosen, 84 S.W.2d 
1001, 126 Tex. 51 Alexander v. 
Stock Yards Nat. Bank of Fort 
Worth, Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 997, 
error refused Jackson v. Wolff & 
Marx Co., Civ.App., 11-6 S.W.2d 
467 Merritt v. King, Civ.App., 65 
S.W.2d 464, error refused First 
State Bank of Three Rivers v. 
Petrucha, Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 138, 
error dismissed 'Seale v. Schultz, 
Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 563, error dis- 
missedJones v. Bledsoe, Civ. 
App., 293 S.W. 204 Casey v. State, 
Civ.App., 289 S.W. 42'8. 

Wash. Shockley v. Travelers Ins. 
Co., 137 P.2d 117, 17 Wash.2d 7'36. 

34. (ja. Fleming v. Collins, 9 S.B. 
2d 157, 190 Ga. 210. 

Idaho. Boise Street Car Co. v. Van 



i9 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



56 



were against the undisputed proof or without evi- 
dence to support them. 15 The rule does not, how- 
ever, require that judgment be rendered in accord- 
ance with immaterial findings, or findings on facts 
not within the issues raised by the pleadings; 16 
nor does it require that no judgment be rendered 
unless the verdict contains-a finding of all the facts 
on which it may be based. 17 On the contrary, the 
judgment may be based on the verdict rendered by 
the jury on the special issues submitted to it, to- 
gether with the facts admitted in the pleadings, or 
established by the undisputed evidence, 18 and such 
facts as are incident to the issues on which the jury 
made findings which have support in the evidence. 19 



Where tJiere is loth a general and a special ver- 
dict, judgment should be rendered on the general 
verdict 20 unless the special findings are inconsistent 
therewith. 21 

56. For and Against Whom 

With respect to the parties fop and against whom 
It Is given, a judgment must follow and conform to the 
verdict, decision, or findings. 

With respect to the parties for and against whom 
it is given, as in other particulars, a judgment must 
follow and conform to the verdict, decision, or 
findings, 22 according to the decisions on die ques- 



Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 
502. 
N.C. Sparks v. Sparks, 140 S.E. 300, 

194 N.C. 809. 
Ohio. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Vitti, 

146 N.E. 94, 111 Ohio St 670. 
Tex. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. 
Connellee, Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 
1020 McCuistion v. James, Civ. 
AP&., 46 S.W.2d 717. 
33 C.J. P 1172 note 51. 

Court cannot render judgment on 
different theory from that submit- 
ted to Jury. Great American Ins. 
Co. v. Marbury, Tex.Civ.App., -297 S. 
W. 584. 

15. Tex. Edmlston v. Texas & N. 
O. R. Co., 138 S.W.2d 526, 135 Tex. 
57 Massle v. Hutcheson, Com. 
App., 2*70 S.W. 544 Texas Em- 
ployers Ins. Ass'n v. Schaffer, Civ. 
App., 161 S.W.2d 328, error refused 
-Weston v. Duggan, Civ. App., 1-60 
S.W.2d 1010 Traders & General 
Ins. Co. v. Milliken, Civ.App., 110 
S.W.2d. 108 Liverpool & -London 
& Globe Ins. Co. v. Cabler, Civ. 
App., 271 S.W. 441 TT. S. Fidelity 
& Guaranty Co. v. Dowdle, Civ. 
App., 269 S.W. 119. 
33 C.J. p 1172 note 50 [d]. 

If the verdict is also without sup- 
port in the pleadings of the party in 
whose favor it is rendered, as well 
as without support in the evidence, 
then the court may disregard it and 
enter a Judgment contrary thereto. 
Johnson v. Breckenridge-Stephens 
Title Co., Tex.Com.App., 257 S.W. 
22-3 Rogers v. City of Fort Worth, 
Tex.Civ.App., 2?5 S.W. 214. 

18. CaL Berg v. Berg, 132 P.2d 871, 
56 Cal.App.2d 495. 

Tex. Sproles v. Rosen, 84 S.W.2d 
1001, 126 Tex. 51 Magnolia Pe- 
troleum Co. v. Connellee, Com. 
App., 11 S.W.2d 158 Miller v. 
Lemm, Com. App., 276 S.W. 211 
Allied Underwriters v. Harrell, 
Civ.AjM>.. 143 S.W.2d 621, error dis- 
missed, judgment correct Kim- 
brow v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 
Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 78, affirmed 
Fort Worth & 3>. C, Ry. Co. v. 



Kimbrow, 112 S.W.2d 712, 131 Tex. 
117 Barnhart Mercantile Co. v. 
Bengel, Civ.Aj>p., 77 S.W.2d 295 
Atlas Brick Co. v. North, Civ.App., 
2 S.W.2d 980, reversed on other 
grounds, North v. Atlas Brick Co., 
Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 59, motion 
granted in part 16 S.W.2d 519 
Casey v. State, Civ.App., 2-89 S.W. 
428 Battle v. Wolfe, Civ.App., 283 
S.W. 1073 Liverpool & London & 
Globe Ins. Co. v. Cabler, Civ.App., 
271 S.W. 441 Crowley v. Chap- 
man, Civ.App., 260 S.W. 231 
Smith & Lawson v. Taylor, Civ. 
App., 249 S.W. 519 Baker v. Cole- 
man Abstract Co., Civ.App., 248 S. 
W. 412 Ferguson v. Kuehn, Civ. 
App., 246 S.W. 674 Dickson v. Kil- 
gore State Bank, Civ.App., 244 S. 
W. 392, reversed on other grounds, 
Com.App., 257 S.W. 867 Stark v. 
George, Civ.App., 237 S.W. 948, re- 
versed on other grounds, Com. 
App., 252 S.W. 1053. 
33 C.J. p 1172 note 52. 
Finding* held not immaterial 
Tex. Hart v. Wilson, Com.App., 288 
S.W. 133. 

Findings without support in evi- 
dence and outside issues held not to 
afford basis for valid judgment. 
Devlin v. City of Pleasanton, 288 P. 
595, 130 Kan. 76*6. 

17. Ga. Allen v. Allen, 31 S.B.2d 
483, 198 Ga. 269 Law v. Coleman, 
159 S.B. 679, 173 Ga. 68. 

18. Ga. Allen v. Allen, 31 S.E.2d 
483, 198 Ga. 269 Law v. Coleman, 
159 S.B. 679, 173 Ga, 68. 

Tex. Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. 
Whiteman, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 
635, error dismissed Richardson 
v. Kent, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 420 
Great American Ins. Co.' v. Mar- 
bury, Civ.App., 297 S.W. 684. 
Judgment based on issue not sub- 
mitted to jury and not controverted 
held not erroneous. Graham Hotel 
Co. v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 'SS S.W. 
Sd 522, error dismissed. 

19. Tex. Richardson v. Kent, Civ. 
App., 47 S.W.2d 420. 

143 



An implied "**Hg on an issue sub- 
mitted to, and not determined by, 
the jury cannot be made the basis of 
judgment. J. R. Milam Co. v. First 
Nat Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 
480, error dismissed. 

20. Idaho. Geddes v. Davis, 210 P. 
584, 36 Idaho 201. 

33 C.J. p 1173 note 56. 

21. Ind. Earl Park State Bank v. 
Lowmon, 161 N.E. 675, 92 Ind.App. 
25 Scottish Union & National Ins. 
Co. v. B. R Linkenhelt & Co., 121 
N.E. 373, 70 Ind.App. 324. 

, Behymer v. Milgram Food 
Stores, 101 P.2d 912, 151 Kan. 921 
Hogan v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. 
Co., 85 P.2d 28, 148 TCan. 720, 120 
A.L.R. 521. 
33 C.J. p 1173 note 56. 

Court looks to pleadings, general 
verdict, and jury's answers to inter- 
rogatories in determining what is 
proper judgment. Earl Park State 
Bank v. Lowmon, 161 N.E. 675, 92 
Ind. App. 25. 

Facts found held not inconsistent 
with general verdict. 
Ind. L. S. Ayres & Co. v. Hicks, 40 
N.E.M '334, 220 Ind. 86, rehearing 
denied 41 N.E.2d 195, 356, 220 Ind. 
86. 

Kan. Preston v. Kansas Central In- 
demnity Co., 243 P. 300, 120 Kan. 
297. 

22. Cal. Header v. Parsons, 19 Cal. 
294 Tarpey v. Curran, 228 P. 62, 
67 CaLApp. 575. 

Conn. Endut v. Borodenko, 145 A. 
27, 109 Conn. 677. 

Ind. Feuerstein v. Baumelster, 8 N. 
E.2d 412, 103 Ind.App. 432. 

Mo. White v. Meiderhoff, App., 281 
S.W. 98. 

Ohio. State ex rel. Fulton v. Ach, 4 
N.E.2d 462, 62 Ohio App. 439 
Spieker v. Board of Rapid Transit 
Com'rs of City of Cincinnati, 174 
N.E. 15, 37 Ohio App. 102. 

Tex. Peveto v. Smith, 133 S.W.2d 
572, 134 Tex. 308 Fleming Oil Co. 
v. Watts, Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 979 
-Corpus Juris cited in Walker v. 
Taylor, Civ.App. f 56 S.W.2d 251, 



56 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



tion, as reasonably construed 23 in the light of 
the pleadings and evidence and settled principles of 
law. 24 The judgment must be rendered in favor of 
the party indicated by the verdict provided his 
pleadings are sufficient to sustain it. 25 A judgment 
must be for plaintiff on a finding in his favor, 26 
and for defendant on a finding in his favor. 27 
Where the finding is against all defendants, the 
judgment must be entered against all, 28 except those 
properly dismissed from the action after verdict, 29 
and, where it is in favor of all defendants, the 
judgment likewise must be entered in favor of them 
aIL 

Although there is also contrary authority, 81 it has 
been held that a verdict against one or more of 
several defendants authorizes the entry of a judg- 
ment in favor of defendants not mentioned in it, 32 
and a verdict in favor of a defendant charged as 
primarily liable has been held to authorize a judg- 
ment in favor of defendants, secondarily liable. 38 
When the verdict is for plaintiff on one count only, 



a judgment for defendant on the other counts has 
been held proper. 84 In designating the parties the 
use of the singular for the plural or vice versa will 
not amount to a variance between the verdict and 
judgment, where it is evidently a mistake and does 
not cast obscurity on the decision, 35 but the use of 
the plural to designate all the parties on one side 
requires the entry of a judgment in favor of all 
such parties, and a judgment in favor of only one 
of them is erroneous. 86 An obvious misnomer in 
the verdict may be corrected in the judgment with- 
out constituting a variance. 87 So a party described 
in the pleadings as a corporation may be so de- 
scribed in the judgment, although the verdict fails 
to do so. 88 



57. 



Amount 



Generally a Judgment must be rendered for the 
amount indicated by the verdict or findings. 

A judgment must be rendered for the amount in- 
dicated by the verdict or findings, 89 in the absence 



252 First Nat Bank v. Harris 

Bros. Grain Co., Civ.App., 254 S. 

W. 119 Branch v. Smith, Civ.App., 

245 S.W. 799. 
Wash. Shew v. Hartnett, 208 P. 60, 

121 Wash. 1. 
33 C.J. p 1174 note 71. 

Judgment heia not inconsistent 
with verdict, decision, or findings. 
Cal. Taylor v. Odell, 122 P.2d 919, 

50 Cal.App.2d 115. 
Tex. Burd v. San Antonio Southern 

Ry. C.o. Com.App., 281 $.W. 1021. 
Dismissal as to one plaintiff 

Under verdict for plaintiffs, except 
named plaintiff, defendant was enti- 
tled to dismissal of complaint, as 
against such named plaintiff. 
'Eclipse Lumber Co. v. Davis, 207 N. 
W. 238, 201 Iowa 1283, opinion cor- 
rected on other grounds 209 N.W. 
307. 

23. Ohio. Spieker v. Board of Rap- 
id Transit Com'rs of City of Cin- 
cinnati, 174 N.BL 15, 37 Ohio App. 
102. 

Wash. Shew v. Hartnett, 208 P. 60, 

121 Wash. 1. 

Verdict against one defendant 
acting as agent of co defendant held 
to authorize judgment against both 
in view of instructions. Mixon v. 
Southern Ry. Co., 138 S.E. 45, 1'39 
S.C. 343. 

24. Cal. Curtis Y. San Pedro 
Tranap. Co., 52 P.2d 528, 10 Cal. 
App.2d 547. 

25. Cal. Metropolis Trust & -Sav- 
ings Bank v. Monnier, 147 P. 265, 
1C 9 Cal. 592. 

33 C.J. p 1174 note "72. 

T7here plaintiff's attorney admit- 
ted failure to make out case against 



certain defendants, and as to them 
consented to dismissal, judgment 
against such defendants on general 
verdict for plaintiff was erroneous. 
Hanson- Jacobs- Co. v. Schlesinger, 
206 N.Y.8. 277, 210 App.Div. 434. 
29. 111. -Rose v. Meyer, 25 N.B.2d 

413, 303 IH.App. 365. 
33 C.J. p 1175 note 73. 
27. HI. Leon v. Mutual Ben. 

Health & Accident Ass'n, 55 N.B.2d 

557, 323 IlLApp. 203. 
33 C.J. p 11*75 note 74. 

If only conclusion deduoible from 
foots found calls for judgment for 
defendant, Judgment for plaintiff is 
erroneous as a matter of law. En- 
dut v. Borodenko, 145 A. 7, 109 
Conn. -577J 
23. Ala. Harris v. White, 101 So. 

751, 212 Ala. 54. 
Ind. Feuerstein v. Baumeister, 8 N. 

E.2d 41*2, 103 Ind.App. 432. 
33 C.J. p 1175 note 75. 

Judgment held not objectionable 
as not being in accordance with ver- 
dict against all defendants. Tomer- 
lin v. Krause. Tex.Civ.App., 278 S. 
W. 501. 
Defect held not to void judgment 

In an action against defendants 
jointly and severally liable, a judg- 
ment on a verdict for plaintiffs mis- 
takenly entere4 against only one of 
the defendants has been held not 
void. Power v. Crown Stage Co., 
256 P. 457, 82 Cal.App. 660. * 

29. Tex. Johnson v. Moss, Civ. 
App., 108 S.W.2d 1110, error dis- 
missed. 

30. Cal. Butler v. Estrella 'Raisin 
Vineyard Co., 56 P. 1040, 134 Cal. 
239. I 

144 



31- Cal. Keller v. Smith, 19 P.2d 

541, 130 CaLApp. 128. 
38. Pa. Carroll v. Kirk, 19 A.2d 

584, 144 Pa.Super. <211. 
33 C.J. p 1175 note 77. 

33. B.C. Hoagland v. Chestnut 
Farms Dairy, 72 F.2d 729, 63 App. 
D.C. 357. 

34. Mo. Buckman y. Missouri, K. & 
T. R. Co., T3 S.W. 270, 100 Mo.App. 
30. 

35. Ark. Missouri Pacific Transp. 
Co. v. 'Sharp, 108 S.W.2d 579, 194 
Ark. 405. 

Pla. Davis v. Ivey, 112 So. .264, cer- 
tiorari denied MeUon v. Ivey, 48 
S.-Ct. 17. 275 U.S. 526, 72 L.Ed. 407. 

Mo. Mehlstaub v. Michael, 287 S.W. 
1079, 221 Mo.App. 807. 

33 C.J. p 1175 note 79. 

36. Fla. Baker & Holmes Co. v. In- 
dian River State Bank, 55 So. 836, 
61 Fla. 106. 

37. Ky. Pittsburg, C. C. & St. I* 
R. Co, v. Darlington, 111 S.W. 3-60, 
129 Ky. 266, 33 Ky.L. 818. 

38. Ala. Oliver's Garage v. Lowe* 
103 So. 586, 212 Ala. 602. 

39. Cal. San Francisco Credit 
Clearing House v. MacGowan, -24 6 
P. 347, 77 CaLApp. 308. 

N.Y. Costello v. New York qent. & 

H. R. R. Co., 144 N.H. 514, 238 N.Y. 

240. 
N.C. Johnson v. Metropolitan 'Life 

Ins. Co., 14 S.B.2d 405, 219 N.C. 

445. 
Tex. Prideaux v. Roark, Com.App., 

291 S,W. 868. 
33 C.J. p 1175 note 83. 

Judgments held in conformity 
with, or supported by, verdict or 
findings* 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



57 



of a statute permitting the court to disregard the 
verdict or findings, 40 and a judgment for either a 
greater 41 or a smaller 42 amount than indicated by 
the verdict or findings, without the consent of the 
party adversely affected, 43 is erroneous unless there 
is a mere error in computation of the amount, and 
sufficient data is given from which the court may 
compute the correct amount, 44 or the pleadings and 
evidence are insufficient to support the verdict or 
findings, 45 or, according to some cases, where the 
jury have mistakenly failed to follow the instruc- 
tions given them, 46 although as to this there is also 
authority to the contrary. 4 ? A small variance in 
amount between the verdict and the judgment may, 
however, be disregarded as immaterial. 4 * Ordi- 
narily a judgment for a specified amount cannot reg- 



ularly be entered on a verdict which does not as- 
sess the amount; 49 but where the amount can be 
ascertained by mere computation, or is undisputed, 
it is not reversible error for the court to make the 
computation and to enter judgment on the verdict 
for the amount thus ascertained. 50 

Excessive verdict. Where the verdict is support- 
ed in some amount, it has been held that the court 
must enter judgment on the verdict, even though it 
considers the amount unjust or excessive. 51 It has 
also been held, however, that if the verdict is ex- 
cessive and the excess is remitted, judgment for the 
residue may be entered on the verdict. 52 

Attorney's fees. Where the obligation sued on 
provides for the payment of a definite sum as at- 



Cal. Llano Inv. Co. v. Minton, 214 
P. 855, 190 CaL T52 Churchill v. 
Peters, 134 P.2d 841, 57 Cal.App.2d 
521 State Compensation Ins. 
Fund v. Rothwell, 284 P, 943, 103 
Cal.App. 607. 
Or. Grammer v. Wiggins-Meyer S. 

S. Co., 270 P. 759, 126 Or. 694. 
40. Only on motion and notice can 
the court disregard the jury's find- 
ing under a statute so providing. 
St t-ouis, B. & M. Ry. Qo. v. Sim- 
monds, Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 343, mod- 
ified on other grounds Simmonds v. 
St. Louis B. & M. Ry. Co., 91 S.W.2d 
332, 127 Tex. 23. 

41- U.S. Mutual Ben. Health & Ac- 
cident Ass'n v. Thomas, C.C.A. 
Ark.. 1'23 F.2d 353 Detroit City 
Gas Co. v. Syme, C.C.A.Mieh., 109 
F.2d 366. 

Ark. Powers v. Wood Parts Corpo- 
ration, 44 S.W.2d 324, 184 Ark. 
1032. 
Colo. Greenwald v. Molloy, 166 P. 

2d 983. 
Ga. Mercer v. Nowell, 175 S.B. 12, 

179 Ga. 37. 
111. Koltz v.. Jahaaske, 38 N.E.2d 

973, 312 IlLApp. -623. 

Ind. Wisconsin Nat. Life Ins. Co. 

v. Meixel, 51 N.B.2d 78, 221 Ind. 

650. 

Mich. Dirkes v. Lenzen, 214 N.W. 

81, 239 Mich. 270. 
Miss. Tonkel v. Moore, 137 So. 189, 

162 Miss. 83. 

N.Y. -Stern v. Rona, 61 N.T.S.2d 563 

La Valley v. Stanford, 56 N.Y. 

S.2d 359. 

Tex. Bridwell v. Bernard, Civ.App., 
159 S.W.2d 981, error refused 
Rountree Motor Co. v. Smith Mo- 
tor Co., Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 296, 
error dismissed Barnhart Mer- 
cantile Co. v. feengel, Civ.App., 77 
S.W.2d 295- Magnolia Petroleum 
Co. v. Dodd, Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 
670, set aside on other grounds 81 
S.W.'2d 653, 125 Tex. 125 Si 
Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Sim- 
monds, Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 343 

49 C.J.S.-10 



modified on other grounds Sim- 
monds v. St. Louis B. & M. Ry. 
Co., 91 S.W.2d 332, 127 Tex. 23 
Southwest Nat. Bank of Dallas v. 
Hill, Civ.App., 297 S.W. 1096. 
33"C.J. p 1175 note 84. 
Judgment for future payments au- 
thorized 

In action on disability clause of 
insurance policy, judgment award- 
ing plaintiff amount found -by Jury to 
be then due and directing future 
payments as long as disability con- 
tinued, the case being retained on 
the docket for further proceedings, 
held authorized as against conten- 
tion that judgment was not In con- 
formity with verdict. Mutual Life 
Ins. Co. of New Tork v. McBlrath, 
87 S.W.2d 619, 261 Ky. 321 Eauita- 
ble Life Assur. Soc. of U. S. v. aoble, 
72 S.W.2d -35, 254 Ky. 614. 

Costs held improperly incorporat- 
ed in judgment. Jay-Em Service 
Stations v. Watts, 8 N.T.S.Sd 489, 
255 App.Div. 995. 

42. Cal. Corpus (Taxis cited in 
Cappelmann v. Young, App., 165 P. 
2d 950, 954 Harlow v. Motor 
Coach Co., 17 P.2d 748, 128 CaL 
App. 487. 

111. Koltz v. Jahaaske, 88 N.E.2d 

973, 312 IlLApp. -623. 
Minn. Rieke v. St Albans Land Co., 

231 N.W. 222, 180 Minn. 540. 
Ohio. Weinberg v. Schaller, 171 N. 

B. 346, 34 Ohio App. 464. 
. Hawkeye Securities Ins. Co. v. 

Cashion, Civ.App., 278 S.W. 298 

Owenwood Oil Corporation v. 

Sweet, Civ.App., 263 S.W. 641. 
33 C.J. p 1176 note 85. 

Defendant held, not entitled to 
complain of such Judgment. Schaff 
v. Lynn, Tex.'Civ.App., 253 S.W. 590 

43. in. Koltz v. Jahaaske, 38 N.E 
2d 973, 312 IlLApp. 623. 

33 C.J. p 1176 note 86. 

44. Ind. Dawson v. Shirk, 1 N.E. 
392, 102 Ind. 184. 

33 C.J. p 1176 note 87. 

145 



45. Tex. Twichell v. Klinke, Civ. 
App., 272 S.W. 283. 

Where the verdict is greater than 
the amount alleged, it has been held 
that Judgment should be entered for 
the latter sum. Dorsett v. Crew, 1 
Colo. 1833 C.J. p 1176 note 90. ' 

46. Wis. Schweitzer v. Connor, 14 
N.W. 92*2, 57 Wis. 177. 

33 C.J. p 1176 note 8*8. 

47. Ky. Dunn v. Blue Grass Realty 
Qo., 173 S.W. 1122, 163 Ky. 384. 

33 C.J. p 1176 note 89. 

48. Tex. Brown v. Montgomery, 
Civ.App., 31 S.W. 1079. 

33 C.J. p 1176 note 91. 

49. Ohio. Worst v. Colonial Sav. 
Bank & Trust Co., 11 Ohio App. 
308. 

Pa. Allen v. Slock, 2 Penr. & W. 

159. 
33 C.J. p 1176 note 92. 

50. Ga. Mercer v. Nowell, 175 S. 
B. 12, 179 Ga, 37 Rich v. Belcher, 
158 S.E. 643, 43 Ga.App. 377. 

Kan. Gartner v. Hays, 222 P. 72, 

115 Kan. 88. 
Wis. Feelyater v. Chicago, M. & St. 

P. Ry. Co., 190 N.W. 193, 178 Wis. 

362. 
33 C.J. P 1176 note 93. 

Judgment for amount shown by 
uncontradicted evidence should be 
rendered by court where jury falls 
to bring verdict in such amount. 
Bllerson Floral Co. v. Chesapeake & 
O. Ry. Co., 141 S.EL 834, 149 Va. 809. 

In an action on a liquidated <j e - 
mond a general verdict for plaintiff 
supports a Judgment for the full 
amount sued for. Rogers v. Bryan, 
Tex. Civ. App., 270 S.W. 1066. 

51. Minn. Rieke v. St. Albans Land 
Co., 231 N.W. 222, ISO Minn. 540. 

52. Kan. Traders State Bank of 
Glen Elder v. Wooster, 154 P.2d 
1017, 159 Kan. 337. 

Wash. Young v. Rummens, 210 P. 

198. 121 Wash. 63$. 
33 C.J. p 1176 note 95. 



58 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



torney's fees, on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for 
the principal and interest it has been held that it 
is not error for the court in rendering judgment to 
add the attorney's fees provided for in such obli- 
gation. 53 



58. 



Interest 



As a general rule the Judgment must be supported 
by, and conform to, the verdict, decision, or findings, 
with respect to the allowance of interest and the amount 
thereof. 

As a general rule the judgment must be support- 
ed by, and conform to, the verdict, decision, or find- 
ings with respect to the allowance of interest and 
the amount thereof, 54 and if the jury do not allow 
interest in their verdict the court cannot allow it. 55 
Also, where the date from which interest runs is 
a matter for the jury to determine, if the jury, 
while allowing interest, fail to fix the date from 
which it is to run the court cannot do so. 56 Inter- 
est may be allowed, however, on the verdict from 
the time of its return, 57 and, where statutory au- 



thority therefor exists, on the judgment, even 
though the verdict is silent thereon. 58 

The rule barring the inclusion of interest in the 
judgment where the verdict fails to allow it has 
been held to apply even where the issue of interest 
is not submitted to the jury. 5 ^ It has been held, 
however, that where, no issue as to interest is sub- 
mitted to the jury and the right thereto exists as a 
matter of law, and there is no dispute as to the 
amount thereof, the court may allow interest in its 
judgment even though the verdict is silent. 60 
Where there is no issue as to the date from which 
interest is to run, it has been held that the court in 
its judgment may fix such time in accordance with 
the rules of substantive law. 61 

Interest may be included in the judgment where 
the verdict or finding with regard to it is sufficient- 
ly certain and definite as to amount, 62 or if, with- 
out specifying the amount of the interest allowed, 
it contains data . from which it can be calculated 
with certainty and precision; 63 but where the 
amount is not definite and certain, 64 and cannot be 
made certain, 65 the court is not authorized to render 



53. Okl. Hope v. Gordon, 50 P.2d 
669, 174 Okl. 368. 

54. Ga. Ivester v. Brown, 121 S.B. 
241, 157 Ga, 376. 

Mo. Meffert v. Lawson, 28*7 S.W. 

610, 315 Mo. 1091. 
33 C.J. p 1177 note 99. 
Date from which interest runs 

Where . verdict allowed "interest 
from date," judgment should allow 
Interest only from date of verdict. 
Miller v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. 
Ass'n of North Carolina, 155 S.E. 
2-54, 199 N.C. 594. 

55. Ala. Corpus Juris quoted in W. 
T. Raleigh Co. v. Harmon, 22 So.2d 
603, 605. 

Fla. Shoup v. Waits, 107 So. 769, 91 
Fla. 378. 

Ky. Parsley v. Parsley, 6 S.W.'2d 
234, 224 Ky. 254 Wright v. Har- 
lan Fuel Co.,'283 S.W. 944, 214 Ky. 
602. 

Mo. Meffert r. Lawson. #87 S.W. 
610, 315 Mo. 1091. 

N.C. Davis v. Doggett, 194 S.B. 288, 
212 N.C. 589. 

Tex. Bain Peanut Co. of Texas v. 
Pinson, Com. App., 29*2 S.W. 203, 
set aside on other grounds 294 S. 
W. 536 St. Louis Southwestern 
Ry. Co. of Texas v. -Seale & Jones, 
Com~Aupp., 267 S.W. 676 Lone Star 
Finance Corporation v. Schelling, 
Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 35'8 Buelin v. 
Smith, Civ.A-pp., 294 S.W. 317, re- 
versed on other grounds Bulin v. 
Smith, Com. App., 1 S.W.2d 591 
Brooks Supply C|o. v. First State 
Bank of ElectraV Civ.App., 292 S. 
W. 6$1 Williams v. Walker, Civ. 
App., 290 S.W. 299 Lancaster v. 



Norris, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 401, re- 
versed on other grounds Norris v. 
Lancaster, Com.App., 280 S.W. 574 
Gamer Paper Co. v. Tuscany, 
Civ.App., 264 S.W. 132 Joseph v. 
Bostick, Civ. App., 264 S.W. 129, re- 
versed on other grounds, Com. 
App., 276 S.W. 6'72 Mack Interna- 
tional Motor Truck Corporation v. 
Coonrod, Civ.App., 264 S.W. 129. 
33 C.J. p 1177 note 1. 
Rule held applicable to special issue 

verdicts 

Tex. ^Atkinson v. Jackson Bros., Civ. 
App., 2-59 S.W. 280, modified on 
other grounds, Com. App., 270 S.W. 
348. 

Interest is presumed to be includ- 
ed in a general verdict for a gross 
sum where the question of interest 
was not reserved by the court and 
there is nothing in the record to in- 
dicate that the jury omitted inter- 
est, and the court cannot in such 
case add it. Enterprise Seed Co. v. 
Leonard Seed Co., 220 P. 633, 96 Okl. 
12"2. 

58. N.C. Acme Mfg. Co. v. Mc- 
Queen, 127 S.E. 246, 189 N.C. 311. 

57. Ky. Wright v. Harlan Fuel 
Co., 283 S.W. 944, 214 Ky. 602. 

33 C.J. p 1177 note 2. 

58. Ga. Lang v. . South Georgia 
Inv. Co., 144 S.E. 149, 38 Ga.App. 
4*30. 

59. Tex. Davis v. Morris, "Com. 
App., 272 S.W. 1103 Thompson v. 
Van Natta, Civ.App., 277 S.W. 711 
Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. 
Ryan, Civ.App., 271 S.W. '397. 

146 



60. Ga. Allen v. Allen, 81 S.E.2d 
483, 198 Ga. 269. 

Miss. Collins v. Carter, 125 So. 89, 
15*5 Miss. 600. 

Tex. Ewing v. Foley, Inc., 280 S. 
W. 499, 115 Tex. 222, 44 A.L.R. 62-7 
Shield Co. v. Carter, qiv.App., 5'8 
S.W.2d 1068 Acme Brick Co. v. 
Turjpin. Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 322, 
error dismissed Automobile Un- 
derwriters of America v. Radford, 
Civ.App., 293 S.W. 869, affirmed, 
Com.App., 299 S.W. 852 Miller v. 
Miller, Civ.App., 292 S.W. 917. 

Wis. In re Draper's Estate, 203 N. 
W. 360, 187 Wis. 347. 

61. Ky. Hack v. Lashley, -245 S.W. 
851, 197 Ky. 117. 

62. Mich. Bell v. ArcUs, 38 Mich. 
609. 

63. Iowa. Grimes Sav. Bank v. Mc- 
Harg, 236 N.W. 418, 213 Iowa 969, 
certiorari denied McHarg v. 
Grime.9 Sav. Bank, 53 S.Ct. 5, 287 
U.S. 599, 77 L.Ed. 522. 

Okl. Corpus Juris cited in Fletcher 
v. Allen, 157 P.-2d 452, 453, 195 Okl. 
307. 
33 C.J. p 1177 note 3. 

A general verdict, such as, "We 
the jury find for plaintiff," has been 
held sufficient to support a Judgment 
for interest in an action on a con- 
tract. Darden v. Matthews, 22 Tex. 
320 West v. L. W. Sweet, Inc., Tex. 
Civ.App., 292 S.W. 251. 

64. Mich. Bell v. Ardis, 38 Mich. 
609. 

65. Okl. Fletcher v. Allen, 157 P. 
2d 4>52, 195 Okl. 307. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



59 



a judgment for interest If the specification of 
interest is insufficient, a judgment for the principal 
amount found, without interest, is supported by the 
verdict. 66 Error in calculation of interest may 
generally be corrected by amendment or modifica- 
tion of the judgment in the trial court or on ap- 
peal. 6 ? 

59. Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto 

A judgment non obstante veredicto Is a Judgment 
given for one party notwithstanding the finding of a 
verdict in favor of the other party, and a motion for 
judgment non obstante veredicto means a motion for 
judgment notwithstanding the entire verdict, the pur- 
pose being to avoid a new trial and to secure a final 
judgment in favor of the movant. 

In its broadest sense a judgment non obstante 



veredicto is a judgment given for one party not- 
withstanding the finding of a verdict in favor of 
the other party. 6 * A motion for judgment non ob- 
stante veredicto means a motion for judgment not- 
withstanding the entire verdict. 6 ^ The purpose of 
the motion is to avoid a new trial and to secure a 
final judgment in favor of the movant. 70 The mo- 
tion is wholly separate and distinct from a motion 
for a new trial, 71 and it has been distinguished from 
a motion in arrest of judgment. 72 Moreover it is 
not construable as a motion to amend the verdict. 73 

Although, as discussed infra 60-61, the prac- 
tice with respect to granting judgment non ob- 
stante veredicto is general and well settled, in a 
few jurisdictions it is narrowly limited in applica- 
tion. 74 



63. Neb. Wiseman v. Ziegler, $0 
N.W. 320, 41 Neb. 886. 

67. Ala. Spence v. Rutledge, 11 
Ala. 590. 

33 C.J. p 1177 note 7. 

68. Ind. Inter State Motor Freight 
System v. Henry, 38 N.E.2d 909, 
111 Ind.App. 179. 

33 C.J. p 1178 note 9. 

Judgment on special findings against 

general verdict distinguished see 

infra 60 e. 

Particular Judgment construed as 
not a judgment non obstante ver- 
odicto authorized by statute, where 
judgment and motion showed that 
judgment was rendered on verdict 
notwithstanding jury's failure to an* 
swer issue. Davis v. Bond, 158 S. 
W.2d 297, 138 Tex. 206. 

69. Tex. Myers v. Crenshaw, 137 
S.W.2d 7, 1-34 Tex. 500. 

7Q. Iowa. Miller v. Southern Sure- 
ty Co., 229 N.W. 909, 209 Iowa 
1221. 

71. Iowa. Miller v. Southern Sure- 
ty Co., supra Cownie v. Kopf, 
202 N.W. 517, 199 Iowa 737. 

Alternative motion for new trial 

see infra 61 a. 
Motion for new trial generally see 

the C.J.S. title New Trial 139- 

146 also 46 C.J. p 314 note 58 et 

sea. 

72. Mo. King v. Kaw-Mo Whole- 
sale Grocer Co., 175 S.W. 77, 188 
Mo.App. 235, 839. 

33 C.J. p 1178 note 9 [b]. 
Arrest of judgment generally see in- 
fra 87-99. 
Distinction. 

."It is true that in some respects 
the two motions are similar. For 
example, both are directed only to 
material defects in the record. 
However, there are also Important 
distinctions. The party filing a mo- 
tion for judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict asks the court to do 
something more than merely to ar- 



rest the judgment. Such a motion 
requests the court to go farther and 
render judgment in plaintiffs favor 
notwithstanding the verdict which 
has been found against him. A par- 
ty filing a motion in arrest of judg- 
ment does not ask the court for a 
judgment in his favor, but only 
asks that the judgment be arrested, 
and alleges that the party In whose 
favor the verdict was rendered is 
not entitled to the judgment of the 
court because of some insufficiency 
in the record proper." First Nat. 
Bank v. Dunbar, 72 S.W.2d '821, 824, 
230 Mo.App. 687. 

73, Mo. Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S. 
W. 610, 315 Mo. 1091. 

74. Puerto Rico. Erwin v. Nater, 6 
Puerto Rico Fed. 690. 

33 C.J. p 1178 note 11. 

Judgment non obstante veredicto in 

federal courts see Federal Courts 

144 f. 

XXL action under Federal Employ- 
ers' Liability Act state court may 
render judgment notwithstanding 
verdict. 
Minn. Robertson v. Chicago, B. I. 

& P. Ry. Co., 2*30 N.W. 585, 180 

Minn. 578, certiorari denied 51 S. 

Ct 31, 282 U.S. 854, 75 L.Bd. 756 

Marshall v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 

R. Co., 157 N.W. 6-38, 133 Minn. 

460. 
Pa. Casseday v. Baltimore & O. R. 

Co., 22 AJ2d -663, 343 Pa, 342. 
Xa. Missouri 

Motion for judgment notwith- 
standing verdict, despite code, is not 
obsolete, nor is it regulated by stat- 
ute regarding motions for new trial 
and in arrest of judgment, but rath- 
er by rules of common law. Meffert 
v. Lawson, 287 S.W. 610, 315 Mo. 
1091 #3 C.J. p 1178 note 11 [b]. 
la Texas. 

(1> Under the former practice 
the judgment was required to fol- 
low the verdict, and the court was! 

147 



without "power to render judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict "on a ma- 
terial issue. Vogel v. Allen, 13 S. 
W.2d 340, 118 Tex. 196 Fitch v. 
Lomax, Com.App., 16 S.W.2d -530, 66 
A.L.R. 758 North v. Atlas Brick 
Co., Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 59, motion 
granted in part 16 S.W.2d 519 Mag- 
nolia Petroleum Co. v. Connellee, 
Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 15*8, followed in 
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Akin, 11 
S.W.2d 1113, and rehearing denied 
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Connel- 
lee, 14 S.W.2d 1020, and 20 S.W.Sd 
758 Morris v. Jackson, Com.App., 
296 S.W. 486 Deal v. Craven, Com. 
App., 277 S.W. 1046 Nalle v. Walen- 
ta, Civ. App., 102 S.W.24 1070 Mag- 
nolia Petroleum Co. v. Beck, Civ. 
App., 41 S.W.2d 488, error dismissed 
Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co., Civ. 
App., 38 S.W.2d 417, error refused 
Westex Theaters v. Williams, Civ. 
App., 35 S.W.2d 253 Jones v. Prine, 
Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 446 Carter v. 
Portwood, Civ.App., 26 S.W.2d 422, 
error dismissed Peeler v. Smith, 
Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 938, affirmed 
Smith v. Peeler, Com. App., 29 S.W. 
3d 975 Murray Tool Co. v. Root & 
Fehl, Civ.App.. 16 S.W.2d 316, re- 
versed on other grounds Root & Fehl 
v. Murray Tool Co,, Com.App., 2-6 
S.W.2d 189, 75 A.L.R. 902 South- 
west 'Nat. Bank of Dallas v. Hill, 
Civ.App., '297 S.W. 1096 Garrison 
Tie & Timber Co. v. Parrott, Civ. 
App., 293 S.W. 701 Sorenson v. City 
Nat Bank, Civ.App., "293 S.W. 638 
Potomac Ins. Co. v. Easley, Civ. 
App., 293 S.W. 346, reformed and af- 
firmed, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 263 
Reese v. Reese, Civ.App., 289 S.W. 
1023 Lyon v. Gray, Civ.App., 288 S. 
W. 54-5 Rogers v. City of Fort 
Worth, Civ.App., 275 S.W. 214 
Dowd v. Klock, Civ.App., 268 S.W. 
234, reversed on other grounds Klock 
v. Dowd, Com.App., 280 S.W. 194 
Bateman v. Cleghorn, Civ.App., 266 
S.W, 422 Branch r. Watford, Civ. 
App., 254 'S.W. 389, affirmed Wafford 



60 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



60. When and for Whom Granted 

a. In general; pleading as basis for 

judgment 

b. Evidence as basis for judgment 

c. On motion to disregard special issue 

jury finding 

d. On point reserved 

e. On special findings against general 

verdict 

f. In particular proceedings 

g. Amount of verdict 
h." Party entitled 

i. Waiver and estoppel 

a. In General; Pleading as Basis for Judg- 
ment 

At common law, and in the absence of statute pro- 



viding otherwise, a Judgment notwithstanding the ver- 
dict may be rendered when, and only when, the plead- 
Ings entitle the party against whom the verdict is ren- 
dered to a Judgment and where the party against whom 
such Judgment Is rendered is precluded from recovery 
by some matter not subject to amendment, or which 
could not be supplied on a new trial. 

Originally, at common law, a judgment non ob- 
stante veredicto could be entered only when the 
plea confessed the cause of action and set up mat- 
ters in avoidance which were insufficient, although 
found true, to constitute either a defense or a bar 
to the action. 75 In such a case plaintiff was enti- 
tled to a judgment in his favor notwithstanding a 
verdict for defendant. 78 Thus a judgment non ob- 
stante veredicto at common law was merely one 
species of a judgment on the pleadings. 77 Some 
statutes expressly provide for the rendering of 



v. Branch, Com:App., 267 S.W. 26 
Thornton v. Athens Nat. Bank 
Civ.App., 252 S.W. 278 Compton 
Skeeters, Civ.App., 250 S.W. 201 
3-3 C.J. p 1178 note 11 [fj. 

(2) Court could, however, ignor 
jury's findings where under no view 
of pleadings and evidence was plain 
tiff entitled to recover. Vogel y 
Allen, 13 S.W.Ed "340, 11'8 Tex. 196 
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Connel 
lee, Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 158, fol 
lowed In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v 
Akin, 11 S.W.2d 1113. and rehearing 
denied Magnolia Petroleum Co. v 
Connellee, 14 S.W.2d 1020, and 2 
&W.2d 758 pence v. National Life 
& Accident Ins. Co., Civ.App. f 59 S 
W.2d 212 -Ellis County v. McKay 
Civ.App. '56 S.W.'2d -310 Sproles v 
ftosen, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 331, af- 
firmed '84 -S,W.2d 1001, T26 Tex 51 
Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co., Civ 
Apjp., 38 S.W.2d 417, error refused. 

(3) Disregard of findings on im- 
material issues was not violation of 
mle prohibiting rendition of Judg- 
tnent non obstante veredicto. Klock 
v. Dowd, Com.App., 280 S.W. 194 
Chaison v. Stark, Civ.App., 20 S.W. 
2d 500, reversed on other grounds 
Stark v. Chaison, Com.Ap'p., 50 S.W. 
2d 776 Atlas v. Byers, Civ.App., 21 
S.W.2d 1080 <Long v. McCoy,' Civ. 
App., 294 S.W. -eSS, affirmed McCoy 
v. Long, Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 234, 
rehearing denied 17 -S.W.2d 783 
Tardley v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 
CJr.App., 1288 S.W. 861 Sheek v. Tex- 
as Co., Civ.App., 286 -S.W. -336 Mc- 
Oee v. Cage, Civ.App,, 283 S.W. 283. 

(4) 'Furthermore, rule prohibiting 
Judgments non obstante veredicto 
was not violated by giving of sum- 
mary instructions or withdrawing 
case from jury. Adams v. Houston 
Nat Bank, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 878 
Noble v. Empire Gas & -Fuel Co., 
Cir.App., 20 S.W.2d 849, affirmed Em- 



pire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Noble, Qom 
App., 36 B.W.2d 451. 

(5) However, the Texas practic 
has been modified by statute, as dis 
cussed infra 60, and Judgment not 
withstanding the verdict is author 
ized in certain cases. 

xu trtafc 

A motion for Judgment notwith 
standing, the verdict Is not recog 
nized as proper. Morrison v. Perry 
140 P.2d 772, 104 Utah 151 Kirk v 
Salt (Lake City, 89 P, 45'8, 32 Utah 
143, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 1021. 

78. Ariz. Corpus Juris quote* in 
Eads v. Commercial Nat. Bank o 
Phoenix, 1266 P. 14, 15, 33 Ariz. 499 
62 A.L.R. 183. 

Fhu Corpus Juris cited In Dudte* 
v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 173 
So. 820, 2'3, 127 Fla. 687, rehear- 
ing denied 174 So. 729, 128 Fla. 
358 Corpus Juris cited in Atlantic 
Coast -Line R. Co. v. Canady, 165 
So. 629, 6aO, 122 Fla. 447 Corpus 
Jurl* cited in Pillet v. Ershick, 
126 -So. 784, 788, 99 Fla. 433. 

Idaho. Prairie Flour Mill Co. v. 
Farmers' Elevator Co., 2-61 P. 673, 
45 Idaho 2*29. 

111. Illinois Tuberculosis Ass'n v. 
Springfield Marine Bank, 2S2 111. 
lApp. 14 Capelle v. CJhicago & N. 
W. R. Co., 280 IlLApp. 471 Mod- 
era Woodmen of America v. Blair, 
263 IU.App. 387 Manufacturers', 
.Finance Trust v. Stone, 251 111. 
App. 414. 

Minn. Anderson v. Newsome, 258 N. 
W. 157, 193 Minn. 157 Funkley v. 
Ridgway, 197 N.W. 280, 158 Minn. 
265. 

Mo. Meffert v. Lawson, ^87 S.W. 
610, 3,15 Mo. 1091. 

ST.C. Corpus Juris cited in Johnson 
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14 
S.B,2d 405, 406, 219 N.C. 445 
Corpus Juris cited in Jernlgan v. 

148 



Neighbors, 141 S.B. 586, 195 N.C 
231. 

Okl. Rohland v. International Har- 
vester Co. of America, 76 P.2cl 
1078, 182 Okl. 200. 

Or. Snyder v. Portland Ry., Light & 
Power Co., 215 P. '887, 107 Or. 673. 

Pa. Corpus Juris cited in Common- 
wealth v. Heller, 24 A.-2d 460, 462, 
147 Pa.Super. 68. 

Tex. Corpus Juris sited in Traders 
& General Ins. Co. v. MHliken, Civ 
App., 110 S.W.2d 108-^Corpus Ju- 
ris cited in Stallings v. Federal 
Underwriters Exchange, Civ. App., 
108 S.W.2d 449, 451 Spence v. Na- 
tional Life & Accident Ins. Co., 
Civ.App., 59 S.W.Bd 212. 

33 C.J. p 1178 note 12. 

76. Ariz. Corpus Juris quoted in 
Bads v. Commercial Nat Bank of 
Phoenix, 266 P. 14, 15, 33 Ariz. 
499, 62 A.L.R. 183. 

Minn. Anderson v. Newsome, 258 
N.W. 157, 193 Minn. 157 Funk- 
ley v. Ridgway, 197 N.W. 280, 158 
Minn. 265. 

Pa, Corpus Juris cited in Common- 
wealth v. Heller. 24 A.2d 460, 462, 
147 Pa.Super. 68. 

33 C.J. p 1178 note tt, p 1179 note 13. 

77. Colo. Corpus Juris cited in 
Board of Com'rs of Costilla Coun- 
ty v. Wood, 250 P. 860, 861, '80 
Colo. 279. 

Del. Burton v. Delaware Poultry 
Co., 1'5 AJ2d 440, 2 Terry 68. 

Fla. Corpus Juris cited in Dudley 
v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 173 
So. 820, 823, 127 -Fla. 687, rehear- 
ing denied 174 So. 729, 12*8 Fla. 
338. 

Ga. Corpus Juris cited in Snyder v. 
Elkan, 1*99 S.B. 891, 894, 187 Ga. 
164. 

11. Malewski v. Mackiewich, 282 
111. App. 1593 Illinois Tuberculosis 
Ass'n v. Springfield Marine Bank, 
282 IlLApp. 14 Capelle v. Chicago 
& N. W. R. Co.. 280 IlLtApp. 47L 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



judgment on the pleadings 'irrespective of the ver- 
dict, 78 and in some jurisdictions the right to file a 
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is 
purely statutory and judgment may be rendered 
only after full compliance with the statute. 80 



In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, 
such a judgment may be rendered only when the 
pleadings entitle the party against whom the verdict 
is rendered to a judgment, 81 and only where the 



Ky. Roe T. Gentry's Ex'x, 162 S. 

W.2d BO'S, 290 Ky. 598. 
Minn. Anderson v. Newsome, 258 N. 
W. 157, 193 Minn. 157 Funkley v. 
Ridgway. 197 N.W. 280, 158 Minn. 
265. 

N.J. Corpus Juris cited in Respond 
v. Decker, 162 A. 725, 726, 109 N. 
J.Law 458. 

N.C. Page Supply Co. v. Horton, 17 
S.E.2d 493, 220 N.C. 373-^Johnson 
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14 
S.B.2d 40-5, 219 N.C. 445 MacMil- 
lan Buick Co. v. Rhodes, *2 8.E.2d 
699, 215 N.C. 595 Little v. Mar- 
tin Furniture Co., 158 S.E. 490, 200 
N.C. 731 Art Bronze & Iron 
Works v. Beaman, 155 S.E. 166, 199 
N.C. 537. 

Ohio. J. & P. Harig Co. v. City of 
Cincinnati, 22 N.E.2d 540, 61 Ohio 
App. "314 Lehman v. Harvey, 187 
N.B. 28, 45 Ohio App. 215, petition 
dismissed 187 N.B. 201, 127 Ohio 
St. 159 Schmidt v. Austin, 159 
N.B. -850, 26 Ohio App. 240. 
Or. -Snyder v. Portland Ry., 'Light 
& Power Co., 215 P. '887, 107 Or. 
673. 

Tenn. Citizens' Trust Co. v. Service 
Motor Car Co., 297 S.W. 735, 154 
Tenn. 507 Jamison v. Metropoli- 
tan Life Ins. Co., 145 S.W.2d 553. 
24 Tenn.App. 398 National Life 
Accident Ins. Co. v. American 
Trust Co., 68 S.W.2d 971, 17 Tenn. 
App. 516. 

Vt. Nadeau r. St Albans Aerie No. 
1205 Fraternal Order of Eagles, 26 
A.2d 93, 112 Vt 397 Johnson v. 
Hardware Mut Casualty Co., 1 A. 
2d 817, 109 Vt 481. 
3-3 C.J. p 1179 note 16. 
Judgment on pleadings see the C.J. 
S. title Pleading 424-449, also 
49 C.J. p 666 note 81 et seq. 
Tested by pleadings 

Judgment notwithstanding verdict 
is to 'be tested by pleadings. De 
Boer v. Olmsted, 260 P. 108, 82 Colo. 
369. 

78. I1L McNeill v. Harrison & 
Sons, 2 N.E. ( 2d 959, 286 Ill.App. 
.120. 
Iowa. Parriott v. Levis, 195 .N.W. 

STS, 196 Iowa 875. 

Or. iSnyder v. Portland Ry., Light 
'& Power Co., 215 P. 887, 107 Or. 
6-73. 

33 C.J. p 1179 note 18. 
Cause of action arising' prior to stat- 
ute 

The amended statute providing 
that when, on statements in the 
pleadings, or on the evidence re- 
ceived on the trial, one party is en- 
titled, by law -to Judgment in his fa-^ 



vor, judgment shall be so rendered 
by the court, although a verdict has 
been found against him, determined 
the procedural rights of parties in 
an action filed after the statute's ef- 
fective date, even though the cause 
of action arose prior to the effective 
date. Miller v. Star Co., 15 N.E.2d 
151, 57 Ohio App. 485. 
Common-law practice held adopted 

by statute 
Neb. Hamaker v. Patrick. 244 N.W. 

420, 123 Neb. 809. 

Plaintiff's objection to legal 
oiency of denial in answer by mo- 
tion for Judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict came too late, and the 
overruling of such motion by the 
trial court did not constitute error 
under statute authorizing judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict where, 
on statements in pleading, a party 
is entitled by law to judgment in his 
favor. Shoemaker v. Standard Oil 
Co., 20 N.E.2d 520, 135 Ohio St. 262. 
Statutes held mandatory 
Ky. Ernst v. Pike, 24 S.W.2d 553, 

232 Ky. 680. 
Ohio. Central Community Chautau- 

qua System v. Rentschler, 166 N. 

E. 698, 31 Ohio App. 525. 
in Plorida 

(1) It has been held that grant- 
ing of motions for judgments non 
obstante veredicto is governed by. 
common-law principles and statute 
providing that appellate court re- 
versing order granting new trial 
should direct final judgment to be 
entered for party who had obtained 
Verdict, unless motion for judgment 
non obstante veredicto should be 
made and prevail, did not change 
grounds or scope of motions for 
judgments non obstante veredicto as 
they existed at time statute was 
adopted. Dudley v. Harrison, Mc- 
Cready & Co., 173 So. 820, 127 Fla. 
687, rehearing denied 174 So. 729, 
128 Fla. 338. 

(2) Where, however, action for 
injuries to child at railroad crossing 
was predicated on alleged negligence 
of railroad's employees and evidence 
showed that employees were not neg- 
ligent, refusal to sustain defendant 
railroad's motion for Judgment not- 
withstanding verdict for child was 
held reversible error. Atlantic Coast 
Line R. Co. v. Canady, 165 So. 629, 
122 Fla. 447. 
79. Iowa. In re Larimer's Estate, 

283 N.W. 430, 235 Iowa 1067. 
Inapplicable statutes 

The act of 1805 providing for the 
payment of a jury fee, and the en- 

149 



try of judgment on a verdict, has no 
reference to a judgment non ob- 
stante veredicto entered directly by 
the court under the Act of 1905. 
McClelland v. West Penn Appliance 
Co., 1 A.2d 491, 132 Pa.Super. 471. 

8Q. Tex. Nalle v. Walenta, Civ. 
App., 102 S.W.2d 1070. 

81. Ark. Powers v. Wood Parts 
Corporation, 44 iS.W.Sd 324, 184 
Ark. 1032 Corpus Juris cited in 
Oil Fields Corporation v. Cubage, 
24 S.W.2d 328, 329, ISO Ark. 1018. 
Colo. Corpus Juris oitsd in Board 
of Com'rs of Costilla County v. 
Wood, 250 P. 860, 861, SO Colo. 
279. 
Conn. Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co., 

41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622. 
DeL Burton v. Delaware Poultry 

Co., 15 A.2d 440, 2 Terry 68. 
Ga. Corpus Juris citad in Snyder v. 
Elkan, 199 -S.E. 891, S94, 187 Ga. 
164. 

Iowa. K. O. Lee & Son Co. v. Sund- 
berg, 291 N.W. 146, 227 Iowa 137'5. 
Ky. Roe v. Gentry's Ex'x, 162 S.W. 
2d 208, '290 Ky. 598 World Fire & 
Marine Ins. Co. v. Tapp, 151 S.W. 
2d 42S, 286 Ky. 650 Stone v. 
Smith, 151 S.W.2d 71, 286 Ky. 46S 
Wheeldor. v. Regenhardt Const. 
Co., 145 S.W.2d 527, 284 Ky. 603 
Slusher v. Hubble, 72 S.W.2d 59, 
254 Ky. 595 Auto Livery Co. v. 
Stone, 36 S.W.2d 349, 237 Ky. 686 
Sachs v. Hensley, 294 S.W. 1073, 
220 Ky. 226 Insurance Co. of 
North America v. Gore, 284 S.W. 
1107, 215 Ky. 4'S7. 
Minn. Timmins v. Pfeifer, 230 'X. 

W. 260, ISO Minn. 1. 
Mo. Thomas v. Land, 30 S.W.2d 

1035, "225 Mo.App. 216. - 
Neb. Wolfinger v. Shaw, 287 N.W. 
63, 1*36 Neb. 604 Winterson v. 
Pantel Realty Co., 282 N.W. 393, 
135 Neb. 472 Le Bron Electrical 
Works, Inc. v. Pizinger, 270 N.W. 
683, 132 Neb. 164. 

N.C. Little v. Martin Furniture Co., 
158 S.E. 490, 200 N.C. 731 Art 
Bronze & Iron Works v. Beaman, 
155 S.B. 166, 199 N.C. 537 Cor- 
pus Juris cited in Jernigan v. 
Neighbors, 141 S.E. 586, 195 N.C. 
231. 

Ohio. Matcoski v. City of Canton, 
6 N.E.2d 795, 54 Ohio App. 234 
Lehman v. Harvey, 187 K.E. 28, 
45 Ohio App. 215, error dismissed 
187 N.E. 201, 127 Ohio St 159. 
Or. Clarkson v. Wong, 42 P.2d 763, 
150 Or. 406, motion denied 45 P. 
2d 914, 150 Or. 406 Bernstein v. 
Berg, 262 P. 247, 123 Or. 343. 



60 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



party against whom such judgment is rendered is 
precluded from recovery by some matter not sub- 
ject to amendment, or which could not be supplied 
on a new trial, 82 and where the defect in the plead- 
ing was not cured by the verdict; 83 but under 
such circumstances it is proper to enter judgment 
for the party entitled notwithstanding the verdict 
against him. 84 A proceeding for a motion non ob- 
stante veredicto must be founded on substantial in- 
sufficiency of the pleading on which the verdict 



surely rested, 86 and the defect must be such that 
no cause of action or defense is stated in the plead- 
ing. 86 

When rendered for plaintiff. A judgment non ob- 
stante veredicto may be rendered for plaintiff where 
the issue determined for defendant is immaterial, 87 
provided the case is not one calling for a repleader, 
within the rules discussed hereinafter in this sub- 
section, and where the plea or answer sets up facts 
insufficient in law to constitute a defense, 88 or 



Tenn. Stevens v. Moore, 139 S.W.2d 
"^ 710, 24 Tenn.App. 61. 
W.Va. Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 864, 
112 W.Va. 181 Gray v. Norfolk 
& W. Ry. Co., 130 S.E. 1'39, 99 W. 
Va. 575 Zogg v. Kern Oil & Gas 
Co., 117 S.E. 620, 94 W.Va. 17 
Dunbar Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cris- 
sey, 114 S.E. 804, 92 W.Va. 419. 
33 C.J. p H80 note BO. 
Verdict responsive to pleadings 

In ejectment action, where de- 
fendant entered plea of not guilty 
and special plea of adverse posses- 
sion of part of premises, verdict 
for plaintiff as to part described in 
the special plea was responsive to 
the plea of general issue as limited 
by the second plea, and hence would 
not furnish basis for judgment non 
obstante veredicto on ground that 
verdict was on special plea only and 
that special plea was bad. Wicker 
v. Williams, 189 So. 30, 137 Fla. 752. 
Defects cored "by adverse pleading" 

Judgment on pleading, notwith- 
standing verdict not stating facts 
warranting recovery, is unauthorized 
unless defects are cured by ad- 
verse party's pleading. Ernst v. 
Pike, -24 S.W.2d 553, 2-32 Ky. 680. 
In Oklahoma 

The trial court is without jurisdic- 
tion to -enter judgment non obstante 
veredicto unless the party in whose 
favor such judgment is rendered 
would be entitled- to judgment on 
the pleadings or the jury has return- 
ed special findings of fact contrary 
to the general verdict Garrett v. 
Kennedy, 145 P.2d 407, 193 Okl. 605 
National Mut Casualty Co. v. Har- 
mon, 113 P.2d 597, 189 Okl. 53 
Mason v. McNeal, 100 P.2d 451, 187 
Okl. 31 Martin v. National Bank 
of Claremore, 77 P.2d 40, 182 Okl. 
217 Rohland v. International Har- 
vester Co. of America, 76 P.2d 1078, 
18-2 Okl. 200 Dunham v. Chemical 
Bank & Trust Co., 71 P.2d 468, 180 
Okl. 537 Myrick v. City of Tulsa, 
54 P.2d 330, 175 Okl. 647 Queen Ins. 
Co. of America v. Baker, 50 P.2d 
371, 174 Okl. 273 Diamond v. Enid 
Milling Co., 299 P. 440, 149 Okl. 61 
Beesley v. Wm. A. Nicholson Co., 
298 P. 607, 148 Okl. 270-^City of 
Ardmore v. Hill, 293 P. 554, 146 Okl. 
200 State v. Hinkle, 287 P. 722, 
143 Okl. =33 St Louis-San Francisco 



Ry. Co. v. Eakins, 284 P. 866, H41 
Okl. 256 Spruce v. Chicago, R. I. 
& P. Ry. Co., 281 P. 586, 159 Okl. 
123 Eldridge v. Vance, 280 P. 5.70, 
138 Okl. 201 Beard v. W. T. Raw- 
leigh Co., 277 (P. 657, 136 Okl. 165 
Thompson v. Florence, 274 P. 671, 
135 Okl. 116 St. Louis-San Fran- 
cisco Ry. Co. v. Bell, 273 P. 243, 
134 Okl. 2151 Bartels v. Suter, 266 
P. 753, 1-30 Okl. 7 First Nat. Bank 
v. Russell, 262 P. 205, 1 ! 28 Okl. 222 
Garble Sav. Bank v. First State 
Bank of Vanoss, 261 P. 913, 128 Okl. 
165 Maryland Casualty Co. v. Bal- 
lard, 259 P. 528, 126 Okl. 270 Odom 
v. Cedar Rapids Sav. Bank, 244 IP. 
758, 114 Okl. 126 Stapleton Motor 
Sales Co. v. Oates, 255 P. 513, 109 
Okl. 173 Schaap v. Williams, 2-25 
P. 910, 99 Okl. 21 Montie Oil Co. 
v. Nichols, 224 P. 542, 98 Okl. 75 
Dill v. Johnston, 222 P. 507, 94 
Okl. 264 McAlester v. Bank of Mc- 
Alester, 218 P. 839, 95 Okl. 193 
Hanna v. Gregg, 217 P. 434, 92 Okl. 
34 Hyatt v. Vinita Brass Works, 
214 (P. 706, 89 Okl. in First Nat. 
Bank v. Ball, -209 P. 322, 87 Okl. 
16233 C.J. p 1180 note 20. 

82. Ariz. Bads v. Commercial Nat 
Bank of (Phoenix, 266 P. 14, 33 
Ariz. 499, 62 A.L.R. 183. 

Cal. Gallagher v. California Pacific 

Title & Trust Co., 57 P.2d 195, 

13 Cal.App.2d 482. 
Conn. Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co., 

41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622. 
Fla. Johnston v. Campbell, 129 

So. 765, 100 Fla. 393. 
Minn. Anderson v. Newsome, 258 

N.W. 157, 193 Minn. 157 Dreelan 

v. Karon, 254 N.W. 4i33, 191 Minn. 

3 : 30 Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty 

Co., 21*2 N.W. 595, 170 Minn. 326. 
N.T. Soper v. Soper, 5 Wend. 112. 
Pa. Hawck v. Scranton Real Estate 

Co., 44 Pa.Co. $21, 17 Lack.Jur. 

90. 
33 C.J. p 1180 note 21. 

83. Ariz. Eads v. Commercial Nat 
Bank of Phcenix, 266 P. 14, 33 
Ariz. 4*99, 62 A.L.R. 183. 

Ky. Forsythe v. Rexroat, 27 S.W. 

2d 69(5, 234 Ky. 173. 
33 C.J. p 1180 note 22. 

84. Conn. Gesualdi v. Connecticut 
Co., 41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622. 

Ky. Brannon v. Scott, 156 S.W.2d 
164, 288 Ky. 3#4 Franklin County 

150 



v. Bailey, 63 S.W.2d 622, 250 Ky. 

528. 
Ohio. Workman v. Thompson, 47 N. 

E.2d 996, 141 Ohio St 287 Frank 

v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 7 Ohio 

N.P.,N.S., 1143. 
Okl, Hiebert v. Koenig, 138 P.2d 

534, 192 Okl. 376 Montie Oil Co. 

v. Nichols, 224 P. 542, 98 Okl. 

75 Dill v. Johnston, 222 P. 507, 

94 Okl. 264 Hyatt v. Vinita 

Brass Works, 214 P. 706, 89 OkL 

171. 
>Tenn. Wood v. Imperial Motor Co., 

5 Tenn.App. 246 Elbinger Shoe 

Co. v. Thomas, 1 Tenn.App. 161- 
33 C.J. p 1180 note 23. 

Motion held properly denied where 
sufficiency of affidavit of merits, at- 
tacked by motion for judgment not- 
withstanding verdict, following va- 
cation of judgment by confession, 
was not before court when motion 
was heard. Renfrew v. Kramer, 173", 
N.E. 390, 341 111. 398. 

85. Ala. City of Birmingham v. 
Andrews, 132 So. 877, 222 Ala. 862. 

86. Iowa. Millard v. Herges, 236 
N.W. 89, 21i3 Iowa 279, modified on 
other grounds 238 N.W. 604. 
Petition held to state cause of ac- 
tion as against motion for judgment 
notwithstanding verdict. Jensen v. 
Incorporated Town of Magnolia, 25 T 
N.W. 584, 219 Iowa 209. 

Answer held sufficient on motion 
for judgment notwithstanding ver- 
dict. Persia 6av. Bank v. Wilson.. 
24-3 N.W. 581, 214 Iowa 993. 

87. U.S. Newton v.. Glenn, C.C.A.. 
Miss., 14*9 F.2d 879.' 

Ala. Corpus Juris cited in City or 
Birmingham v. Andrews, 132 So* 
877, 878, 222 Ala. 362. 

Fla. Bond v. Hewitt, 149 So. 6Q6,. 
Ill Fla. 180. 

33 C.J. p 1181 note 26. 

Right of a plaintiff to a judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict see* 
infra subdivision h of this section.. 

88. Fla. Norwich Union Indemni- 
ty Co. v. Willis, 168 So. 418, 1'24 
Fla. 137, 127 Fla. 288 Berger v. 
Mabry, 151 So. 302, 113 Fla. 31*. 

Minn. Funkley v. Ridgway, 197 N. 

W. 280, 1-58 Minn. 265. 
19 C.J. p 1210 note 26 e] (1) 3 

C.J. p 1181 note 28. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



where on the whole record it appears that the right 
of the case is with plaintiff. 89 Where there is a 
good plea or answer filed, plaintiff is not, under 
common-law principles, entitled to a judgment non 
obstante veredicto. 90 

When rendered for defendant. A judgment non 
obstante veredicto may be rendered for defendant 
where plaintiff's pleadings are insufficient to sup- 
port a judgment in his favor, as where the decla- 
ration states no cause of action, 91 and the defect 
is not cured by the answer, 92 or where plaintiff fails 
to reply to a good plea of new matter, 93 or where 
the verdict for plaintiff was surely on a count which 
did not state a substantial cause of action ; 9 * but 
it has been held that defendant is not entitled to 
judgment non obstante veredicto where a demurrer 
to the petition should have been sustained but was 



overruled 9 * Under the rule that a motion for 
judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be based 
on the pleadings, defendant is not entitled to such 
judgment where plaintiffs pleadings show a good 
cause of action in him, and avoid the defense plead- 
ed.** 

Repleader. A party is not entitled to a judgment 
non obstante veredicto in every case where the is- 
sue determined against him by the verdict is im- 
material. Thus a plaintiff is entitled to judgment 
non obstante veredicto where the issue is immaterial 
or the plea bad only where a repleader is unneces- 
sary to do justice between the parties. 97 A judg- 
ment non obstante veredicto is always on the mer- 
its, and therefore is never rendered except where 
it is clear that the defense is without merits in 
whatever form pleaded. 98 Such a judgment will 



motion held equivalent to demurrer 

to answer 
Ohio. Commercial Credit Co. v. 

Bishop, 170 N.E. 658. 34 Ohio App. 
. 217. 

89. U.S. Newton v. Glenn. C.C.A. 
Miss.. 149 F.2d 879. 

33 C.J. p 1181 note 29. 

90. Minn. Funkley v. Ridgway, 197 
N.W. 280, 158 Minn. 265. 

Mo. Wilcox v. Erwin, App., 49 6. 
W.2d 677. 

Ohio. Commercial Credit Co. v. 
Bishop, 170 N.B. 658, 34 Ohio App. 
217. 

Okl. Dunham v. Chemical Bank & 
Trust Co., 71 P.2d 468, 180 Okl. 
537 First Nat Bank v. Savere, 
270 P. 33, 132 Okl. 191 Maryland 
Casualty Co. v. Ballard, 25*9 P. 5-28, 
126 Okl. 270 Odom v. Cedar Kap- 
ids Sav. Bank, -244 P. 758, 114 Okl. 
126. 

Or. Snyder v. Portland Ry., Light 
& Power Co., 2H5 iP. 887, 107 Or. 
67-3. 

Tex. Continental Southland Savings 
& Loan Ass'n v. Panhandle Const. 
Co., Civ.App. f 77 S.W.2d 896, error 
refused. 

33 C.J. p 1181 note i30. 

Evidence as basis for Judgment not- 
withstanding the verdict see infra 
subdivision b of this section. 

91. Cal. Galiano v. Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co., 67 P.2d <388, 20 Cal. 

App.2d 534. 
Ky. Slusher v. Hubble, 72 S.W.2d 

39, 254 Ky. 595. 
Pa. Casseday v. Baltimore & O. R. 

Co., 22 A.2d 663, 343 Pa. 342. 
33 C.J. p 1181 note 31. 
Right of a defendant to a judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict see 

infra subdivision h of this section. 
Subject to general demurrer 

The statute authorizing trial court 
to render Judgment notwithstanding 
vthe verdict was not intended to en- 



able a defendant to have a Judg- 
ment on the merits of a cause mere- 
ly because plaintiff's pleading might 
be subject to general demurrer. 
Citizens State Bank of Houston v. 
Giles, Tex.Civ.App., -145 S.W.2d 899, 
error dismissed. 
In Oregon 

(1) There is authority supporting 
the text rule. Benicia Agricultural 
Works v. Creighton, -28 P. 775, 30 IP. 
676, 21 Or. 495. 

(2) But, where question whether 
complaint stated facts sufficient to 
constitute cause of action was raised 
by objection to introduction of tes- 
timony, by motion for nonsuit, and 
by motion for directed verdict, court, 
as matter of practice, should have 
refused to entertain motion on same 
ground for Judgment notwithstand- 
ing verdict Borg v. Utah Const. 
Co., 242 P. 600, 117 Or. 22 Scibor 
v. Oregon-Washington R. & Naviga- 
tion Co., 140 P. 629, 70 Or. 116. 

92. Ky. Slusher v. Hubble, 72 S.W. 
2d 39, 254 Ky. 695. 

93. Ky. Hack v. Lashley, 245 S.W. 
851, 197 Ky. 117. 

33 C.J. p 1182 note 32. 
In Florida 

The rule of the text, while recog- 
nized generally as the prevailing 
frule, was not held to be applicable 
in that Jurisdiction. Corpus Juris 
Quoted In Dudley v. Harrison, Mc- 
Cready & Co., 173 So. 820, 822, 127 
Fla. 687, rehearing denied 174 So. 
729, 128 Fla. 338 Corpus Juris cited 
in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. 
Canady, 165 So. 629, 630. 122 Fla. 
447 Corpus Juris cited in Fillet v. 
Ershick, 126 So. 784, 785, 788, -99 
Fla. 483. 

94. Ala. City of Birmingham v. 
Andrews, 132 So. 877, 222 Ala. 362. 

95. Ky. S. K. Jones Const. Co. v. 

151 



Hendley, 5 S.W.2d 482, 484, 224 

Ky. 83. 
Reason for rale 

"It is readily apparent that the 
trial court should not mislead the 
appellee [plaintiff] by overruling the 
demurrer to the petition as amended, 
thus holding it to be sufficient, and 
then sustain the motion for a ver- 
dict on the pleadings, thus holding 
it to be defective. This court is 
committed to the doctrine that in 
this situation the first error of the 
trial court will be corrected upon 
the appeal. Hence the Judgment 
must be reversed,, with direction 
that the demurrer to the petition as 
amended be sustained." S. K. Jones 
Const. Co. v. Hendley, supra. 

96. Iowa. Crouch v. National Live 
Stock Remedy Co., 217 N.W. 657, 
205 Iowa 51. 

N.C. Johnson v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., ft ,S.B.2d 405, 219 N.C. 
445. 

OIsL Myricfc v. City of Tulsa, 54 
P.2d 330, 175 Okl. 647. 

Tenn. Corpus Juris quoted in Citi- 
zens' Trust Co. v. Service Motor 
Car Co., 297 'S.W. 7'35, 736, 154 
Tenn. 507. 

33 C.J. p 1182 note 33. 

Evidence as basis for Judgment not- 
withstanding the verdict see infra 
subdivision b of this section. 

97. Mo. Shreve v. Whittlesey, 7 
Mo. 473. 

Va. Green v. Bailey, 5 Munf. 246, 
19 Va. 246. 

33 C.J. p 1182 note 35. 

Rapleader and Judgment non ob- 
stante veredicto distinguished 

N.Y. Otis v. Hitchcock, 6 Wend. 
433, 434. 

33 C.J. p '1182 note 34 [a3- 

9& Or. Snyder v. Portland Ky., 
Light & Power Co., 215 0?. 887, 107 
Or. 673. 

33 C.J. p 1182 note 86. 



60 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



not be rendered where there is substantially a ma- 
terial issue or a good defense, although the plead- 
ing is technically defective." If the finding is de- 
cisive of the merits, it cures the issue. 1 Where the 
pleading contains matters which, if well pleaded, 
might form a good bar or justification, the court 
will not give judgment non obstante veredicto, but 
will award a repleader. 2 

Basing motion on records of case. At common 
law and, in the absence of statutes providing oth- 
erwise, a judgment non obstante veredicto must be 
based solely on matters appearing on the record, 8 
and has nothing to do with alleged procedural er- 
rors. 4 It cannot be granted on affidavit 5 but only 
on the face of the pleadings, 6 and, as shown infra 
subdivision b (1) of this section, the court may not 
look to the evidence in determining the motion. 

Discretion of court. The granting of a judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict rests very much in the 
discretion of the court. 7 

Form and requisites of judgment. The judg- 



ment rendered in granting the motion should re- 
cite the filing of a proper motion, the giving of 
reasonable notice, that hearing was had, that the 
parties appeared in person or by attorney, the ac- 
tion of the court on the motion, and entry of judg- 
ment after its disposition. 8 

b. Evidence as Basis for Judgment 

(1) In general 

(2) Particular matters affecting right to 

remedy 

(3) Scope of inquiry in general 

(4) Consideration of evidence in passing 

on motion 

(5) Discretion of court 

(1) In General 

In the absence of statutes providing otherwise, a 
judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be granted 
on the record, and the court may not look to the evi- 
dence In determining a motion for such Judgment; ac- 
cordingly such a Judgment cannot be rendered merely 
because the verdict Is against the weight of the evidence. 
In some Jurisdictions, however, such a Judgment may 



99. Ala.-^Corptw Juris cited in City 

of Birmingham v. Andrews, 132 

So. 877, 878, 222 Ala. 362. 
Conn. Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co., 

41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622. 
Fla. Johnston v. Campbell, 129 So. 

766, 100 Fla. 39*3. 
Ill, -Modern Woodmen of America 

v. Blair, 263 Ill.App. "387. 
Neb. Hamaker v. Patrick. 244 N. 

W. 420, 123 Neb. 809. 
Or. Clarkson v. Wong, 42 P.2d 763', 

150 Or. 406, motion denied 45 P. 

2d 914, 150 Or. 406. 
Tex. Williams v. Texas Employers 

Ins. Ass'n, Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 

262, error refused. 
33 C.J. p 1182 note 37. . 

1. 111.- Rothschild v. Bruscke, 23 
N.E. 4519, 131 HI. 265. 

2. Ala. Corpus Juris cited in City 
of Birmingham v. Andrews, 132 
So. 877, 878, 222 Ala, 362. 

Conn. Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co., 
41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622. 

Fla. Bond v. Hewitt, 149 So. 606, 
111 Fla. 180 Johnston v. Camp- 
bell, 129 So. 765, 100 Pla, 393. 

33 C.J. p 1182 note 39. 

Repleader generally see the C.J.S. 
title Pleading 338, also 49 CJ. 
p 580 note 73 et seq. 

3. Fla. Tolliver v. Loftin, 21 So. 
2d 359. ' - 

111. Modern Woodmen of America v. 

Blair, 263 IlLApp. 387. 
Kan. Corpus Juris Quoted in Hoy 

v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 453, 137 

Kan. 872. 
Ky. Wheeldon v. Regenhardt Const 

Co., 1145 S.W.2d 527, 284 Ky. 603. 
Ho. Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S.W. 

610, 315 (Mo. 1091 First Nat Bank 



v. Dunbar, 72 S.W.2d 821, 230 Mo* 

App. 687. 
Neb. Hamaker v. (Patrick, 244 N.W. 

420, 123 Neb. 809. 
Ohio. Board of Education of Ad- 

dyston Village School Dist v. 

Nolte Tillar Bros. Const Co., 49 

N.B.2d 99, 71 Ohio App. 469. 
Pa, Hershberger v. Hershberger, 29 

A.2d 95, 345 Pa. 439 Murphy v. 

Wolverine Express, 38 A.2d 511, 

155 Pa.Super. 125^Columbia Fur 

Co. v. Needro, $7 Pa. Super. "389 

Maher V. Washington Nat Ins. 

Co., Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co. 267 Maize 

v. United Ben. Life Ins. Co., Com. 

PI., 94 tPittsb.Leg.J. 44. 
Tenn. Stevens v. Moore, 139 S.W.2d 

710, 24 Tenn.App. 61. 
33 C.J. p 1183 note 42. 

Entire record may be considered. 
Paul v. Prudential Ins. Co. of 
America, Ohio App., 64 N.E.2d 124, 

4. Mo. First Nat. Bank v. Dunbar, 
72 S.W.2d 821, 230 Mo.App. 687. 

Pa. Hershberger v. Hershberger, 29 

A.2d 95, 345 Pa. 439 Murphy v. 

Wolverine Express, 58 A.2d 511, 

155 Pa.Super. 0.25. 
33 C.J. p 143 note 80 [b] (2), p 1182 

note 36 [a]. 

5. Kan. Corpus Juris quotefl. in 
Hoy v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 455, 137 
Kan. 872. 

! C.J. p 11 83 note 43. 

Refusal to consider affidavits ten- 
dered by defendant or to permit 
them to be filed after continuance 
was refused was not error where 
much of contents of affidavits ap- 
peared to be amplification of affiants' 
testimony given at trial. Holler- 
Vandenboom Lumber Co. y. Bou- 

152 



dreau, 85 S.W.2d 141, 231 Mo.App. 
1127. 

6. Fla. Okeechobee Co., for Use 
and Benefit of Hamrick, v. Nor- 
ton, 6 So.2d 632, 149 Fla. 651. 

111. McNeill v. Harrison & Sons. 

2 N.E.2d 959, 286 lil.App. 120 

Modern Woodmen of America v. 

Blair, 263 IlLApp. 387. 
Kan. Corpus Juris quoted in Hoy v. 

Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 453, 157 Kan. 

872. 
Neb. Hamaker v. Patrick, 244 N.W. 

420, 123 Neb. 809. 
Ohio, Thompson v. Rutledge, 168 N. 

E. 547, 32 Ohio App. 53T. 
Or. Bernstein v. Berg, 262 P. 247, 

12'3 Or. 34$ Borg v. Utah Const. 

Co., 242 P. 600, (117 Or. 22. 
W.Va. Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 864, 

112 W.Va. 181 Gray v. Norfolk & 

W. Ry. Co., 130 S.E. 139, 99 W.Va. 

575 Zogg v. Kern Oil & Gas Co., 

117 S.E. 620, $4 W.Va. 17 Dunbar 

Tire & Rubber Co., v. Crissey, 114 

S.E. 804, 92 W.Va. 419. 
33 C.J. p 1183 note 45. 

7. Conn. Gesualdi v. Connecticut 
Co., 41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622. 

35 C.J. p 1H80 note 24, p 1181 note 
25. 

Discretion of court as to judgment 
based on evidence see infra sub- 
division b (5) of this section. 

a. Tex. Hines v. Parks, 96 S.W.26* 
970, 128 Tex. 289 Gentry v. Cen- 
tral Motor Co., Civ.App., 100 S.W.. 
2d 215. 

Judgment held proper in form 
Tex. Walters v. Southern S. S. Co., 
Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 320. error dis- 
missed. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



be entered on undisputed evidence or where the verdict 
Is not sustained by any evidence; and the common-law 
remedy has been modified and extended by statutes in 
some jurisdictions. 

At common law and in the absence of statutes 
providing otherwise, a judgment non obstante vere- 
dicto must be granted, if at all, on the record, and 
the court may not look to the evidence "in deter- 



mining a motion for such judgment 9 The proper 
remedy for a wrong or mistaken verdict on the 
facts is by motion for a new trial, not by motion 
for a judgment non obstante veredicto. 10 Accord- 
ingly such a judgment cannot be rendered merely 
because the verdict is against Jhejvdght of the evi- 
dence, 11 although there are intimations that such 
a judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be en- 



9. Fla, Tolliver v. Loftin, 21 So. 
2d 359 Heuacker v. Farrelly, 176 
So. 98, 129 Fla. 29 Dudley v. 
Harrison, McCready & Co., 173 So. 
820, 127 Fla. 687, rehearing denied 
174 So. 729, 128 Fla, 838. 

HI. Malewski v. Mackiewich, 282 
IIl.App. 593 Modern Woodmen of 
America v. Blair, 26*3 IIl.App. 387. 

Infl-JInter State Motor Freight 
System v. Henry, $8 N.E.2d 909, 
111 Ind.App. 179. 

Kan. Corpus Juris quoted in Hoy 
v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 453, 187 
Kan. 872. 

Ky. World Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 
v. Tapp, 151 S.W.2d 428, 286 Ky. 
650 Wheeldon v. Regenhardt 
Const. Co., 145 S.W.2d 527. 284 
Ky. 603. 

N eD . LeBron Electrical Works v. 
Pizinger, 270 N.W. 683, 132 Neb. 
164 Hamaker v. Patrick, 244 N. 
W. 420, 123 Neb. 809 Bielfeldt v. 
Grand Island Transit Co., 243 N.W. 
76, 123 Neb. 368. 

Ohio. Lehman v. Harvey, 187 N.B. 
28. 45 Ohio App. 215, petition dii 
missed 187 N.B. 201, 127 Ohio St 
159. 

Okl. National Mut. Casualty Co. v, 
Harmon, 113 *P.2d 597, 189 Okl. 
53 Martin v. National Bank of 
Claremore, 77 P.2d 40, 182 Okl. 
217 Hanna v. Gregg, 21-7 P. 434, 
92 Okl. 34. 

Term. Corpus Juris quoted in Citi- 
zens' Trust Co. v. Service Motor 
Car Co., 297 S.W. 735, T36, 
Tenn. 507 Stevens v. Moore, !39 
S.W.2d 710, 24'Tenn.App. 6f Dunn 
v. Moore, 123 S.W.2d 1095, 22 Tenn. 
App. 412. 

W.Va, Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 864, 
112 W.Va; 181 Gray v. Norfolk 
& W. Ry. Co., 130 S.E. 159, 99 W. 
Va. 575 -Zogg v. Kern Oil & Gas 
Co., 117 S.E. 620, 94 W.Va, 17 
Dunbar Tire & Rubber Co, v, Cris- 
sey, 114 -S.E. 804, 92 W.Va. 419 
overruling Weeks v. Chesapeake 
& O. Ry. Co., 69 S.E. 805, 68 W.Va, 
284, McMillan v. Middle States Coal 
& Coke Co., 57 S.E. -129, 61 W.Va 
531, 11 L.R.A..N.S., 840, Ruffner 
Bros. v. Dutchess Ins. Co., 53 S.E 
943, 59 W.Va. 432, 115 Am.S.R 
924, 8 Ann.Cas. 866, Anderson v 
Tug River Coal & Coke Co., 53 
S.E. 713, 59 W.Va. -801, and Mau 
pin v. Scottish Union & National 
Ins. Co., 45 S.E. 1003, 53 W.Va, 
5'57. 
33 C.J. p 1183 note 47. 



Reserving questions of fact see in- 
fra subdivision d of this section. 

rinding of fact 
A Judgment notwithstanding the 

erdict may not be based on the 
-rial court's finding of fact. Rice 

'. Builders Material Co., 2 S.E.2d 

27, 120 W.Va. 585 Sponduris v. 
Rameih, 199 S.E. 457, 120 W.Va. 

36. 

10. CaL Silva v. Market St Ry. 
Co., 128 P.2d 904, 50 Cal.App.2d 
796 Takahashi v. White Truck & 
Transfer Co., 59 P.2d 161, 15 CaL 
App.2d 107. 

Fla, Okeechobee Co., for tTse and 
Benefit of Hamrick, v. Norton, 6 
So.2d 632, 149 Fla, 651 Dudley v. 
Harrison, McCready & Co., 173 So. 
820, 127 Fla, 687, rehearing denied 
174 So. 729, 128 Fla, 338. 
111. Schwickrath v. Lowden, 46 N.E. 
2d 162, 317 Ill-App. 431 Pohl v. 
Fazzi, 22 N.E.2d 402, 301 IlLApp. 
622. 

Kan. Underbill v. Motes, 165 P.2d 
218 Corpus Juris quoted In Hoy 
v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 453, 1*7 
Kan. 872. 

Minn. Manning- v. Chicago Great 
Western R. Co., 229 N.W. 566, 179 
Minn. 411. 

Neb. Bielfeldt v. Grand Island 
Transit Co.. 245 N.W. 76, 123 Neb. 
368. 

Ohio. Holmes v. Employers' Liabil- 
ity Assur. Corporation, Limited, 
of London, England, 4<3 N.E.2d 746, 
70 Ohio App. 2-39 Kelley v. Co- 
lumbus Ry., Power & Light Co., 
24 N.E.2d 290, 62 Ohio App. 897. 
Pa. Kindt v. Reading Co., 4* A.2& 
14'6, 32 Pa. 419 MacDonald v, 
Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 A.2d 492, 
348 Pa, 558 'Kotllkoff v. Master, 
27 A.2d 85, 345 Pa, 258 lacovino 
v. Caterino. 2 A.2d 828, 832 Pa, 
555 Osche v. New York Life Ins. 
Co., 187 A. 396, 24 Pa. 1 Hartig 
v. American Ice Co., 187 A. 867, 
290 <Pa, 21 Thomas v. Pennsyl- 
vania R. Co., 119 A. 717, 276 Pa. 
579 Murphy v. Wolverine Ex- 
press, 38 A.2d 511, 155 Pa,Super 
125 Jann v. Linton's Lunch, 29 
A.2d 219, 160 OPaJSuper. 663 Szidor 
v. Greek Catholic Union of Rus- 
sian Brotherhoods of U. S., 21 A 
2d 104, 145 Pa.Super. 251 Pfordi 
v. Educators Beneficial Ass'n, 14 
A.2d 170, 140 Pa,Super. 170 
Adams v. Metropolitan Life Ins 

153 



Co., 7 A.2d 544, 136 Pa.Super. 454 
-Moore v. W. J. Gilmore Drug 
Co., 200 A. 250, 131 Pa.Super. 349 
McCommon v k Johnson, 187 A. 
445, 123 PaSuper. 581 Evans v. 
Stewart, 157 A. 515, 103 Pa.Super. 
549 Carroll v. Reuben H. Don- 
nelly Corp., 53 Pa,Dist & Co. 142 
Piacine v. National Life Ins. Co., 
14 Pa.Dist & Co. 21 States v. 
Pappas, 9 Pa,Dist. & Co. 460 r 18 
DeLCo. 106 Condel v. Savo, Com. 
PI., 46 Lack.Jur. 89 In re Dugh- 
laski's Estate, Orph.. 29 North.Co. 
174. 

Tenn. Corpus Juris quoted in Citi- 
zens' Trust Co. v. Service Motor " 
Car Co., 297 S.W. 735, 756, 154 
Tenn. 507. 

Tex. Casey v. Jones, Civ. App., 189 
S.W.2d 515 Ward v. Strickland 
Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 79, error re- 
fusedWilson v. Hagins, Clv.App.. 
25 S.W.2d 916, affirmed, Com.App., 
50 S.W.2d 797 Atchison, T. & S. 
F. Ry. Co. v. Hiac, Civ.App., 291 S. 
W. 281. 
Utah. Buhler v. Maddison, 140 P.2d 

933, 105 Utah 39. 

Wash. Moore v. Keesey, 163 P.2d 
164 Hayden v. Colville Valley 
Nat. Bank, 89 P.2d 376, 180 Wash. 
220, rehearing denied 43 P.2d 32. 
W.Va, Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 864, 
112 W.Va, 181 Gray v. Norfolk & 
W. Ry. Co., 130 S.B. 139. 99 W.Va. 
575 Zogg v. Kern Oil & Gas Co., 
117 S.B. 620, 94 W.Va. 17 Bun- 
bar Tire & Rubber Co. v. Crissey, 
114 S.E. 804, 92 W.Va, 419. 
Wyo. Caldwell v. Roach. 12 P.2d 

376, 44 Wyo. 319. 
S3 C.J. p 1184 notes 49 [a], 50. 
Verdict contrary to, or not sustained 
by, evidence as ground for new 
trial generally see the C.J.S. title 
New Trial 69-77, also 46 C.J. p 
170 note 41 et secu 

ll Ariz. Durham v. Firestone 
Tire & Rubber Co., 55 P.2d 648, 47 
Ariz. 580 Welch v. United Mut 
Ben. Ass'n, 36 P.2d 256. 44 Ariz. 
198. 

Cal. Silva v. Market St Ry. Co., 123 
P.2d 904. 50 Cal.App.2d 796 Taka- 
hashi v. White Truck & Transfer 
Co., 59 P.2d 161, 15 Cal.App.2d 107. 

Fla. Tolliver. v. Loftin, 2tt So.2d 359 
Talley v. McCain, 174 &>. 841, 
128 Fla, 418 Dudley v. Harrison, 
McCready & Co., 173 So. 820, 127 
Fla. 687, rehearing denied 174 So. 



60 JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S. 

tered on undisputed evidence or where the verdict | is not sustained by any evidence whatever. 5 2 



729, 128 Fla, 338 Corptw Juris 
cited in -Fillet v. Ershick, 126 So. 
784, 788, 99 Fla. 483. 
111. Neering v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
50 N.E.2d 497, 383 111. 366, man- 
date conformed to 53 N.B.2d 271, 
321 IlLApp. 625 -Hunt v. Vermil- 
ion County Children's Home, 44 N. 
B.2d 609, 381 111. 29 Hedden v. 
Farmers Mut Re-Ins. Co. of Chi- 
cago, 111., 60 N.E.2d 110, 325 111. 
App. -335 Schwickrath v. Lowden, 

46 N.E.2d 162, 317 IlLApp. 431 
Gant v. McDowell, 38 N.E.2d 530, 
312 IlLApp. 378 Gnat v. Richard- 
son, 35 N.B.2d 409, 311 IlLApp. 
242, affirmed 39 N.E.2d 337, 378 
111. 626 Modern Woodmen of 
America, v. Blair, 263 IlLApp. 387. 

Kan. Underbill v. Moes. 165 P.2d 

218 Corpus Juris quoted in Hoy 

v. Griffin, 22' P.2d 449, 45'3, 137 

Kan. 872. 
Xy. Roe v. Gentry's Ex'x, 162 S.W. 

2d 208, 290 Ky. -598. 
N.H. Bryson v. Carroll, 41 A.2d 240, 

93 N.H. 287 Exeter Banking Co. 

v. Taylor, 160 A. 733, 85 N.H. 458. 
K.C. Jernigan v. Neighbors, 141 S. 

B. 586, 195 N.C. 231. 
Ohio. Wilkeson v. Brskine & Son, 

61 N.E.2d 201, 145 Ohio St. 218 
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Fred- 
erick Co., 53 N.B.2d 795, 142 Ohio 
St. 605 Workman v. Thompson, 

47 N.E.2d 996, 141 Ohio St. 287 
Beck ,v. Wuerdeman, App., 62 N. 
E.2d 516 Kelley v. Columbus Ry., 
Power & Light Co., 24 N.E.2d 290, 

62 Ohio App. 397. 

Okl. National Mut Casualty Co. v. 
Harmon, 1113 P.2d 597, 189 Okl. 53 
Martin v. National Bank of 
Claremore, 77 P.2d 40, 182 Okl. 
217. 

Or. Kelley v. Stout Lumber Co., 263 
P. 881, 123 Or. 647. 

Pa. Campdon v. Continental Assur. 
Co., 157 A. 464, 305 Pa, 253 Mur- 
phy v. Wolverine Express, 38 A. 
2d 511, 155 Pa,Super. 125 Blair 
to Use of Davis v. Adam chick, 21 
A.2d 107, 145 Pa.Super, 125 Rad- 
ziewicz v. Philadelphia & Reading 
Ry. Co., 94 Pa,Super. 827. 

Tenn. Corpus Juris quoted in Citi- 
^ zens' Trust Co. v. Service Motor 
Car Co., 297 S.W. 735, 736, 154 
Tenn. 507 Jamison v. Metropoli- 
tan Life Ins. Co., 145 S.W.2d 653. 
24 Tenn. App. 398 Dunn v. Moore, 
123 S.W.2d 1095, 22 TemuApp. 412 
National Life & Accident Ins. 
Co. v. American Trust Co., 68 S.W. 
2d 971, 17 Tenn.App. 516. . 

Tex. Deal v. Craven, Com. App., 277 
S.W. 1046 Johnson .v. Moody, Civ. 
App., 104 S.W.2d 583, error dis- 
missed Spence v. National Life & 
Accident Ins. Co., Civ. App., 59 S. 

. W.2d 212. 

Wash. Hayden v. Colville Valley 
Nat Bank, 39 P.2d 376, 180 Wash. 



220, rehearing denied 43 (P.2d 32 
Lydon v. Exchange Nat. Bank, 
235 P. 27, 134 Wash. 188. 

W.Va. Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 
864, 112 W.Va. 181 Gray v. Nor- 
folk & W. Ry. Co., 130 S.B. 189, 
99 W.Va. 575 Zogg v. Korn Oil & 
Gas Co., 117 S.E. 620, 94 W.Va. 17 
Dunbar Tire & Rubber Co. v. 
Crissey, 114 S.E. 804, 92 W.Va, 
419. 

Wis. Volland v. McGee, 294 N.W. 
497, 236 Wis. 358, rehearing denied 
295 N.W. 635, 236 Wis. 358 
Viereg v. Southwestern Wisconsin 
Gas Co., 248 N.W. 775, 212 Wis. 
394. 

33 C.J. p 1183 note 48. 

Trial liy Judge 

Judge, having as trier of fact 
found for plaintiff, could not, al- 
though he subsequently changed his 
mind respecting weight of evidence, 
enter judgment for defendant, unless 
plaintiff was contributory negligent 
as matter of law. Evans v. Stew- 
art, 157 A. 515, 103 Pa,Super. 549. 

Correct practice 

After receiving verdict, entering 
judgment notwithstanding the ver- 
dict, when the real ground of the 
judgment is that it is not supported 
by the evidence, is not strictly cor- 
rect, since a motion for judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict admits 
the finding of the verdict to be true 
and the court on such motion grants 
judgment on grounds other than 
those decided by the jury. In such 
a situation the strictly proper prac- 
tice is to move to set aside verdict 
because not supported by the evi- 
dence, and grant judgment on ground 
that motion for a directed verdict 
should have been granted, or, if no 
such motion was made,, on ground 
that the evidence failed to support a 
cause of action. Shumway v. Mil- 
waukee Athletic Club, 20 N.W.2d 123, 
247 Wis. 393. 

12. Gal. In re Stone's Estate, 138 
P.2d 710, 59 CaLApp.2d 263 -Mag- 
gini v. West Coast Life Ins. Co., 
29 P.2d 263, 136 Cal.App. 472 
Perkins v. (Pacific Fruit Exchange, 
22 P.2d 035, 132 Cal.App. 278 
'Peters v. California Building-Loan 
Ass'n, .2 P.2d 439, 116 Cal.App. 143. 

Colo. Bashor v. Bashor, 85 -P.2d 
732, 103 Colo. 232, 120 A.L.R. 1507. 

Fla. -Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. 
Canady, 165 So. 629, 122 Fla, 447. 

111. Schneidennan v. Interstate 
Transit Lines, 60 N.E.2d 908, 326 
IlLApp. 1 Gant v. McDowell, 38 
N.E.2d 530, 312 IlLApp. 378 Jen- 
kins v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. 
of U. S., 27 N.E.2d 877, 304 111. 
App. 633 Root v. Wentworth, 27 
NJE.2d 651, 305 IlLApp. 493. 

Ban. Corpus juris quoted in Hoy 

154 



v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 4'49, 453, 137 
Kan. 872. 

Me. 'Pierson v. Pierson, 178 A. 617, 
133 Me. 367. 

Mass. Rose v. Silveira, 63 N.E.2d 
895. 

Mich. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. 
of Ann lArbor v. Wuerth, 247 N.W. 
784, 262 Mich. 691 Peckinpaugh v. 
H. W. Noble & Co., 227 N.W. 540, 
248 Mich. 6-68 Wehling v. Linder, 
'226 N.W. 880, 248 Mich. 241 In re 
Schulte's Estate, 211 N.W. 56, 237 
Mich. 147. 

Minn. Powell v. Turnlund, 221 N.W. 
241, 175 Minn. 361 Neal'is v. Chi- 
cago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 218 N. 
W. 125, 173 Minn. 587. 

Miss. Boyle Gin Co. v. W. F. Moo- 
dy & Co., 193 So. 917, 18'8 Miss. 44. 

N.H. Tufts v. White, 26 A.2d 679, 
92 N.H. 158. 

N.Y. Dlckerson v. Long Island R. 
Co., 42 N.T.S.'2d 335, '266 App.Div. 
852, appeal denied 44 N.T.S.2d 344, 
266 App.Div. 921-^Clark v. Har- 
nischfeger Sales Corporation, 264 
N.T.S. 873, 23"8 App.Div. 49-3. 

N.D. Ua Bree v. Dakota Tractor & 
Equipment Co., 288 N.W. 476, $9 
N.D. 5-61 Snyder v. Northern Pac. 
Ry. Co., 285 N.W. 450, 69 N.D. 
266 Kron v. Boomer, 249 N.W. 
7T2, 63 N.D. 686 Johnson v. Mau, 
236 N.W. 4'72, 60 N.D. 757 Odou 
& Arnold v. Benson, 228 N.W. '812, 
59 N.D. 101 Mercantile Protec- 
tive Bureau v. Specht, 2'25 N.W. 
794, '58 N.D. 239 Dahl v. Minne- 
apolis, St P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 
223 N.W. 37, 57 N.D. 538 National 
Cash Register Co. v. Midway City 
Creamery Co., 22-2 N.W. 36, 57 N.D. 
356 Volk v. Hirning, 220 N.W. 
446, 56 N.D. 337 Northern Trust 
Co. v. Havelock Equity Exch. 199 
N.W. 763, 51 N.D. 34-6. 

Ohio. Workman v. Thompson, 47 N. 
E.2d 996, 141 Ohio St. 287 Spann 
v. W. U. Tel. Co., App., 62 N.B.2d 
676 Wilms v. Klein, App., 49 N. 
E.2d 76 Brazis v. National Tele- 
phone Supply Co., App., 48 N.E,2d 
8T3. 

Pa. -Cutler v. Peck Lumber Mfg. 
Co., 37 A.2d 739, 350 Pa, 8 Gour- 
ley v. -Boyle, 29 lA.'2d 523, 346 Pa, 
113 Master v. Goldstein's Fruit & 
Produce, 23 A.2d 443, 344 Pa. 1 . 
Casseday v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 
22 A.2d 663, 343 Pa, 34'2 Borits v. 
Tarapchak, 12 A.2d 910, 3*38 Pa, 
289 Kennedy v. Southern Penn- 
sylvania Traction Co., 3 A.2d 395, 
333 Pa, 406 Golder v. Bogash, 198 
A. 149, 329 Pa, '350 Richardson v. 
Frick Co., 197 A. 151, V29 Pa, 148 
James v. Columbia County Agri- 
cultural, Horticultural & Mechani- 
cal Ass'n, 1'84 A. 447, 321 Pa, 465 
Dangelo v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
152 A, 743, 301 Pa. 579^-Manning 
v. Baltimore & 0. R, Co., 146 1A. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



Moreover the common-law remedy has been mod- j ified and extended in some jurisdictions by stat- 



30, 296 Pa. 380 Gray v. Pennsyl- 
vania R. Co., 141 A. 621, 293 Pa. 
28 Muia v. Herskovltz, 128 A. 
828, 283 Pa. 163 Nolder v. Penn- 
sylvania R. Co., 12-3 A. 507, 27'8 Pa. 
495 Garland v. Craven, 41 A.2d 
140, 156 Pa.Super. 351 Guyton v. 
City of Pittsburgh, 38 AJ2d 383, 
155 Pa. Super. 76 Roslik v. City of 
Pittsburgh, 38 A.2d 36-3, 155 Pa. 
Super. T50 Dick v. West Penn 
Rys. Co., 33 A.2d 792, 153 Pa.Su- 
per. 281 Pischke v. Borough of 
Dormont, 33 A.2d 480, 153 Pa.Su- 
per. 205 Mayer v. Pennsylvania R. 
R., 33 A.2d 474, 153 Pa. Super. 186 
Williams v. Overly Mfg. Co., 34 
A.2d 52, 153 Pa.Super. -347 Bell v. 
Anderson, 17 A.2d 647, 143 Pa.Su- 
per. 56 Foell Packing Co. v. Har- 
ris, 193 A. 152, 127 Pa.Super. 494 
Hahn v. Anderson, 187 A. 450, 
1'23 Pa.Super. 442, modified on oth- 
er grounds 192 A. 489, 326 Pa. 463 
RJittle v. Zeller, 100 Pa.Super. 
516 Sklaroff v. Philadelphia Rap- 
id Transit Co., 100 Pa.Super. 237 
Feinstein v. Philadelphia Rapid 
Transit Co., 100 Pa. Super. 182 
Costolo v. School Disk of -Spring- 
hill Tp., 99 Pa.Super. 259 Hatch 
v. Robinson. 99 Pa.Su'per. 141 
Gottlieb v. Scranton Ry. Co./ 99 
Pa.Super. 7 Coleman v. City of 
Scranton, 99 Pa.Super. 3 Klein v. 
City of Pittsburgh, 97 Pa.Super. 
56 Pittsburgh Transportation Co. 
v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 96 Pa. 
Super. 302 Brody v. Pittsburgh 
Rys. Co., 96 Pa.Super. 265 Siglin 
v. Haiges, 9*5 Pa.Supe,r. 588 Walk- 
er v. Reading Transit & -Light 
Co., 95 Pa.*Super. 461 Kalter y. 
Philadelphia Rap'id Transit Co., 95 
Pa. Super. 11-6 Gimbel v. ^E3tna 
Life Ins. Co., 9'5 Pa.Super. 1 
Radzlewicz v. Philadelphia & Read- 
ing Ry. Co., 94 Pa.Super. 327 
Chachkin v. Accommodation Ice & 
Coal Co., $2 Pa.Super. 416 
Thompson v. Hedrick, 91 Pa. Super. 
41 Fraser v. Freedman, 87 Pa.Su- 
per. 454 Highland v. Russell Car 
& Snow Plow Co., 87 Pa. Super. 
235, affirmed 135 A. 759, 28'8 Pa. 
230, affirmed 49 S.Ct 314, '279 U.S. 
253, 73 'L.Ed. 688 Wagner v. Lon- 
don Guaranty & Accident Co., Lim- 
ited, 86 Pa.Super. 542 Stone v. 
Stone, 85 Pa.Super. 346 Zieger v. 
Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., *4 
Pa. Super. 541 Barshay v. Ameri- 
can Ice Co., 84 Pa.Super. 5*38 
Sussman Bros. v. Meier, 80 Pa.Su- 
per. 78 Meyercord Co. v. P, H. 
Butler Co.. 79 Pa.Super. 473 Mc- 
Bntee v. New York "Life Ins. Co., 
79 Pa.Super. 457 Wetzel v. Pitts- 
burg Rys. C|o., 55 Pa.Super. 2'2 
Cherry v. Mitosky, 53 Pa.Dist & 
Co. 135 Johnson v. Pittsburgh 
Rys. Co., 34 Pa.Dist & Co. 209, 86 
P.L.J. 585 Schmuck v. Heilman, 14 



Pa.Dist & Co. 449, 44 York Leg. 
Rec. 181, affirmed 161 A, 420, 106 
Pa. Super. 12 MJiller v. Devine, 
Com.PL, 54 Dauph.Co. 418 Myers 
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Com. 
PL, 52 Dauph.Co. 318, affirmed 33 
A.2d 253, 152 Pa.Super. 507 Tay- 
lor v. Reading Co., Com.Pl., 51 
2>auph.Co. 69, affirmed '27 A.2d 901, 
149 Pa,Super. 171 Gates v. Finkel- 
stein, Com.PL, 50 Dauph.Co. 361 
Buffington v. Snyder, Com.Pl., 48 
Dauph.Co. -30 Porter v. Philadel- 
phia -Suburban Transp. Co., Com. 
PL, 28 DeLCo. 581 Lundy v. Dev- 
itt Com.PL, 28 Del. 210 Theiss v. 
Moreland, Com.PL, 22 Brie Co. 154 
DiLorens v. Pittsburgh & L. B. 
R. Co., Coxn.Pl., 8 Fay.L.J. 166 
Keating v. Wagner, Com.PL, 42 
Lack.Jur. 84 Schenker v. Indem- 
nity Ins. Co. of North America, 
Com.Pl., 2 Monroe L.R. 141, 10 
Som.Leg.J. 180, affirmed 16 A.2d 
304, -340 Pa. 81 Leedom v. Phil- 
adelphia Transp. Co., Com.PL, 58 
Montg.Co. 392 Deiffenderfer v. 
Weidner, C.om.Pl. f 14 Northunib. 
Leg.J. 176-<!lark v. Pennsylvania 
Power & (Light Co., Com.PL, 14 
Northumb.Leg.J. 29, affirmed -6 A. 
2d 892, 336 Pa, 75 Colella v. Bar- 
toletti. Com.PL. 94 Pittsb.Leg.J. 
14'2 Berger v. Roberts, Com.PL, 93 
Pittsb.Leg.J. 473 Weldon v. Pitts- 
burgh Rys. Co., Com.Pl., 93 Pittsb. 
Leg.J. 88 Paradine v. Wynett, 
Com.Pl. f 93 Pittsb.Leg.J. 75 Rid- 
ley v. Pucci, Com.PL, 89 Pittsb. 
Leg.J. 292 Doerr v. Rands, Com. 
PL, 8'S Pittsb.Leg.J. 579, affirmed 
16 A.2d 377, -340 Pa. 183 Metz v. 
Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Com.PL, 87 
PittsbXieg.J. 484, affirmed 7 A.2d 
505, 135 Pa.Super. '534 Dyer v. 
Peoples Natural Gas Co., Com.PL, 
87 Pittsb.Leg.J. 115 Qoral Gables 
v. Farrell, Com.PL, 86 Pittarb.Leg. 
J. 623 Carey v. Berwager, Com. 
PL, 53 York Leg.Rec. 203. 

S.D. Christensen v. Krueger, 278 N. 
W. 171, 66 S.D. 66-^Larsen v. 
Johnson, 197 N.W. 230, 47 S.D. 202. 

Vt Nadeau v. St Albans Aerie No. 
1205 Fraternal Order of Eagles, 26 
AJ2d 93, 112 Vt 397 Farrell v. 
Greene, 2 A.2d 194, 110 Yt 37 
Johnson v. Hardware Mut Casual- 
ty Co., 1 A.2d 817, 109 Vt 481 
City of Rutland v. Town of Wal- 
lingford, 194 A. 360, 109 Vt. 186. 

Ya. -Wade v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
Co., 193 S.B. 491, 169 Va, 448. 

Wis. Patterson v. Chicago, St. P. 
M. & O. Ry. Co., 294 N.W. 63, 23-6 
Wis. 205 McKee v. Oconto Nat. 
Bank, 248 N.W. 404, 212 Wis. 351 
Depner v. IT. S. Nat Bank, 2 
N.W. 851, '20 ! 2 Wis. 405 First Wis- 
consin Nat Bank of Milwaukee v. 
Town of Catawba, 197 N.W. 1013, 
183 Wis., 220 Twist v. Minneapo- 

155 



Us, St P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 190 

N.W. 449, 178 Wis. 513. 
33 CJ. P 1184 note 4912 C.J. p 369 

note 92. 

Trial court's finding, notwithstand- 
ing verdict, held justified under 

evidence 
La. Lehon v. New Orleans Public 

Service, 123 So. 172, 10 iLa.App. 

715. 
After special verdict 

<1) A judge may enter judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict after a 
special verdict, since such motion 
must be considered on the testimo- 
ny prior to submission of the cause 
to jury. Dzikowski v. Michigan 
Cent R. R., 276 N.W. 470, 2>82 Mich. 
337 In re Cotcher's Estate, 264 N. 
W. 325, 274 Mich. 154 Jacob v. 
Gratiot Central Market 255 N.W. 
331, 237 Mich. 262. 

(2) So, where defendant moved 
for directed verdict, and, at plain- 
tiff's request, case was submitted to 
jury with leave to defendant to move 
for judgment if verdict should be 
otherwise than as would have been 
directed, and general verdict was 
returned for plaintiff and special 
findings were made favorable to 
plaintiff, defendant's motion for 
judgment notwithstanding the ver- 
dict was not improperly granted, on 
ground that the special findings were 
binding on defendant because the 
motion was directed only against the 
general verdict. Jasper v. Wells, 
144 P.2d 50'o, 173 Or. 114. 

(3) The rule that motion for 
judgment notwithstanding verdict is 
usually a concession that special 
findings are supported by evidence, 
although applicable where motion 
is on ground that verdict was con- 
trary to special answers, would not 
be applicable to contentions that ev- 
idence failed to establish defense 
and that judgment should be for 
plaintiff under the law, the evidence 
and the admitted facts. Lewis v. 
Dodson, 100 P.2d 640. 151 Kan. 6'32. 

Where evidence presented ques- 
tions of fact, dismissal of complaint 
after rendition of verdict for plain- 
tiff was error. Sullivan v. Central 
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 63 N. 
B.2d 76, 294 N.Y. 497. 

In Arkansas 

(1) After verdict has been en- 
tered, but before entry of judgment 
if court finds that no testimony has 
been offered to sustain the verdict, 
and that no cause of action has been 
shown to exist the court has juris- 
diction so to declare and direct judg- 
ment which shall be entered. Stan- 
ton v. Arkansas Democrat Co., 106 
S.W.2d 584, 194 Ark, 13533 C.J. p 
1184 note 49. 

C2) But plaintiff was held not en- 



60 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



tites 13 which govern the entry of judgment notwith- 
standing the verdict, 14 and under some of which a 
judgment may be entered, notwithstanding the ver- 



dict, in favor of the party who was entitled to 
have a verdict directed in his favor j 1 ^ but under 
such statutes judgment notwithstanding the verdict 



titled to judgment xxon obstante vere- 
dicto, although there was no testi- 
mony to sustain verdict for defend- 
ant, where verdict was not special, 
and case was not reserved by court 
for future judgment or considera- 
tion, and there was no statement in 
pleadings to justify court in enter- 
ing judgment in favor of plaintiff, 
Crawford & M. Dig. 62*71, 6273, 
being inapplicable. Jackson v. Car- 
ter, 278 S.W. 32, 169 Ark. 1154. 
In ETobraska 

Applying the rule that the trial 
court has the right and power to va- 
cate, set aside, amend, or correct 
any judgments or orders made by It 
at the same term, it has been held 
that where court overruled plain- 
tiff's motion for directed verdict and 
submitted case to jury which re- 
turned verdict for defendant, and 
plaintiff filed motion for judgment 
notwithstanding verdict, court had 
jurisdiction at same term to sustain 
plaintiff's motion in part and enter 
judgment for plaintiff for a portion 
of amount claimed. 'Leon v. Kitchen 
Bros. Hotel Co., 277 N.W. 823, 134 
Neb. 137, 115 A.L.R. 1078. 

In Oklahoma 

(1) The court Is not authorized to 
render a judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict because there is an en- 
tire lack of evidence to justify the 
verdict in favor of the prevailing 
party. St Louis-San -Francisco Ry. 
Co. v. Eakins, 284 P. 866, 141 Okl. 
256 Thompson v. Florence, .274 P. 
671, 135 Okl. 116 St. Louis-San 
Francisco Ry. Co. v. Bell, 273 P. 243, 
134 Okl. 251 Odom v. Cedar Rapids 
Sav. Bank, -244 P. 758, 114 Okl. 126 
McAlester v. Bank of Me Al ester, 218 
P. 839, 9'5 Okl. 193 -Barnes v. Uni- 
versal Tire Protector Co., 165 P. 176, 
63 Okl. 292. 

(2) There is also, however, some 
authority to the contrary. Schafer 
v. Midland Hotel Co., 171 P. 337, 69 
Okl. 201. 

In Washington 

(1) The trial court may enter 
judgment notwithstanding the ver- 
dict in favor of either party where 
it is warranted by the undisputed 
evidence. Morris v. Chicago, M. f St 
P. & P. R. Co., 97 P.2d 119, 1 Wash. 
2d 587, opinion adhered to 100 P.2d 
19, 1 Wash.2d 587 Bobst v. Hardis- 
ty, 91 P.2d 567, 199 Wash. 304. 

(2) A motion for judgment not- 
withstanding the verdict is properly 
granted where as a matter of law 
there is neither evidence nor reason- 
able inference from the evidence sus- 
taining the verdict Rlchey & Gil- 
bert Co. v. Northwestern Natural 
Gaa Corporation, 134 P.2d 444, IS 



Washed $31 Belcher v. Lenta Hard- 
ware Co., 125 P.2d 648, 13 Wash.2d 
523 Van Nostern v. RJichey & Gil- 
bert Co., $9 P.2d 608, 2 Washed 663 
Femling v. Star Pub. Co., 84 P.2d 
1008, 19*5 Wash. 395 Turnquist v. 
Rosaia Bros., 83 P.2d 353, 196 Wash. 
434 Steen v. Polyclmic. '81 P.2d 846, 
195 Wash. 666 Stevich v. Depart- 
ment of Labor and Industries, 47 P. 
2d 32, 18'2 Wash. 401 Christiansen 
v. Anderson, 37 P.2d 889, 179 Wash. 
368-^Clark v. King, 34 P.2d 1105, 178 
Wash. 421 Hanson v. Washington 
Water Power Co., 5 P.2d 10'25, 165 
Wash. 497 Wade v. North Coast 
Transp. Co., 5 P.2d 985, 165 Wash. 
418 Dailey v. Phoenix Inv. Co., 28'5 
P. 657, 155 Wash. 597 Birk v. City 
of Bremerton, '241 P. 678, 1'37 Wash. 
119 Reynolds v. Morgan, 235 P. 800, 
134 Wash. 358 Maddux v. Gray, 2*22 
P. 470, 128 Wash. 149 Fortier v. 
Robillard, 212 P. 1083, 12-3 Wash. 
599 Rieper v. General Cigar Co., 
209 P, 849, 121 Wash. 42733 C.J. P 
1180 note 24 [a]. 

(3) A mere scintilla will not sup- 
port verdict against such motion. 
Kelly v. Drumheller. -272 P. 731, !50 
Wash. 185. 

(4) -So, where there Is no sub- 
stantial evidence in support of the 
verdict, it is within the power of 
the court, notwithstanding the ver- 
dict to direct a judgment in favor 
of any or all of the parties against 
whom the evidence fails. Eyak Riv- 
er Packing Co. v. Huglen, 2*55 P. 1'SS, 
143 Wash. 229, affirmed 257 P. 638, 
143 Wash. 229. 

(5) A trial court, convinced aft- 
er submission of supposed fact is- 
sues to jury and return of verdict, 
that there was no disputed fact 
question for jury, may not only 
grant (motion for judgment notwith- 
standing verdict, but make findings 
in support of money judgment for 
moving party, if such judgment is 
proper under undisputed evidence. 
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Graham, 103 
P.2d 1076, 4 Wash.2d 407, 1'27 A.L.R. 
596. 

13. Minn. Wilcox v. Schloner, 23 

N.W.2d 19. 
33 C.J. p im note 47 [d], p 1184 

note 51. 

. Idaho 

Judgment notwithstanding verdict 
was not permissible prior to statute 
authorizing practice. Helgeson v. 
Powell, 34 P.*2d 957, 54. Idaho 667 
Prairie Flour Mill Co. v. Farmers* 
Elevator Co., '261 P. 673. 45 Idaho 
229. 
Xn. Virginia 

(1) Under the statute empower- 
ing the court to enter such final 

156 



judgment as to it shall seem right 
and proper when the verdict of a 
jury in a civil action is set aside 
as contrary to the evidence, or with- 
out evidence to support it, if there is 
sufficient evidence before the court 
to decide the case on its merits, 
the trial court, in determining- 
whether the jury's verdict should be 
set aside, need not consider evidence 
as on demurrer thereto. 'Flannagan- 
v. Northwestern Mut Life Ins. Co., 
146 S.E. 358, 152 Va, 38. 

(2) Evidence and reasonable and 
proper inferences favorable to pre- 
vailing party, however, will be ac- 
cepted as true. Parsons v. Parker,. 
170 S.B. 1, 160 Va. 810 Bivens v. 
Manhattan for Hire Car Corporation* 
159 S.E. 395, 156 Va. 483. 

(-3) Where there is nothing inher- 
ently incredible in testimony of wit- 
nesses which is sufficient to take- 
case to jury, trial court will not sub- 
stitute its view of case for jury and 
render a judgment notwithstanding- 
the verdict. Hoover v. J. P. Neff & 
Son, 31 S.B.'2d 26-5, 183 Va. 56 Par- 
sons r. Parker, 170 S.B3. 1, 1-60 Va. 
810. 

(4) Power to enter judgment not- 
withstanding verdict depends on* 
there being certain and sufficient ev- 
idence in case to decide it on its 
merits. Dexter-Portland Cement Co. 
r. Acme Supply Co., 133 S.B3. 788, 147 
Va. 758. 

(5) Evidence was held to warrant 
trial court in setting aside * verdict 
as plainly contrary to evidence and 
entering judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict Noland v. Fowler, IS 
S.B.2d 251, 179 Va. 19 Vandenbergh 
& Hitch y. Buckingham Apartment 
Corporation, 128 S.BL 561, 142 Va. 
97. 

14. S.D. Kerr v. Staufer, -238 N.W. 
156, 59 S.D. 83. 

Tex Happ v. Happ, CiV-App., 160 S. 
W.2d 227, error refused. 

15. Ariz. McCauley v. Steward, 164 
P.2d 465. 

Cal. In re Leahy's Estate, 54 P.2d 
704, 5 Cal.2d 301 Hunton r. Cali- 
fornia 'Portland Cement Co., 122 
P.*2d 947, 50 CaLApp.23 684 Van 
Rennes v. Southern Counties Gas* 
Co. of California, 113 P.2d '238, 44 
CaloApp.2d 880 Scott v. George A. 
Fuller Co., 107 P.'2d 55, 41 Cal. 
App.2d 501 Goldenzwig v. Shad- 
dock, <88 P.2d 933, 31 Cal.App.2d 
719 Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing 
Co., 80 P.2d 185, 26 Cal. A pp. 2 d 664, 
followed in Cerezo v. Aztec Brew- 
ing Co., 80 P.2d 198, 26 Cal.App.Sd 
754, rehearing denied Hubbert v. 
Aztec Brewing Co., *0 P.'2d 1016, 
26 CaLApp.2d W4 -Galiano v. Pa- 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



ciflc Gas & Electric Co., 67 P.*2d 
388, 20 CaLApp.2d 534-JCollins v. 
Nelson, 61 P.2d 479, 16 Cal.App.2d 
535 In re Smethurst's Estate, 59 
P.2d 830, 15 CaLApp.2d 322 
Tracey v. L. A. Paving- Co., 41 P. 
2d 94*2, 4 Cal.App.2d 700 Kerby v. 
Elk Grove Union High School 
Dist., 36 P.2d 431, 1 Cal.App.Sd 246 
Crone v. City of Bl Cajon, 24 P. 
2d 846, 133 Cal.App. 624 <3Hy and 
County of San Francisco v. Su- 
perior Court in and for City and 
County of San Francisco, 271 P. 
1-21, 94 CaLApp. 318 Waylanfl v. 
Latham, 264 P. 766, 89 CaLApp. 55. 

Colo. First Nat. Bank of Denver v. 
Kenning, 150 P.2d 790, 112 Colo. 
5*23 Fincher v. Edwin M. Bos- 
worth & Co., 2<38 P. 88, 77 Colo. 
496. 

Idaho. Petersen v. Bannock County, 
102 P.2d 47, 61 Idaho 419 Hen- 
drix v. City of Twin Falls, 29 P.2d 
352, -54 Idaho 130. 

111. -Carrell v. New York Cent R. 
Co., 52 N.-E.2d 201, 348 111. 599 
Lathrop v. Goodyear Tire & Rub- 
ber Co., 60 N.E.24 41, 325 IlLApp. 
2S1 Christensen v* Frankland, 58 
N.E.2d 289. '3-24 IlLApp. 391 JEbert 
v. City of Chicago, 58 N.E.2d 198, 
324 IlLApp. 31-5 Best v. Mid-West 
Const. Corporation, 60 N.E.2d 867, 
320 IlLApp. 341 Casper v. City of 
Chicago, 50 NA^d 858, 320 IlLiApp. 
269 Douglas v. Athens Market 
Corporation, 49 N.E.2d -834, 320 
IlLApp. 40 Haynes v. Holman, 49 
N.E.2d 324, 319 IlLApp. 396 
Sturgeon v. Quarton, 44 N.'E.2d 
766, 316 IlLApp. 308 Bituminous 
Casualty Corporation v. City of 
Virginia, 41 N.E.'2d 342, 314 I1L 
App. 238 Mader v. Handel Bros. 
Dep't Store, 41 N.E.2d 327, 314 I1L 
Ap.p. 263 Kanne v. Metropolitan 
Life Ins. Co., 34 N.H2d 732, 310 
IlLApp. 524 Trust Co. of Chicago 
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 31 
N.E.2d -3-28, "308 IlLApp. 328 Mar- 
ley v. Henzler, 24 N.E.2d 587, 303 
IlLApp. 73 Feinberg v. Chicago, 
B. & Q. R. Co., -21 N.E.2d 26, 300 
IlLApp. 278 "F&rrner v. Alton 
Building & Loan Ass'n, 13 N.E.2d 
652, 294 IlLApp. 206 Malewski v. 
Mackiewich, 28-2 IlLApp. 593 Il- 
linois Tuberculosis Ass'n v. 
Springfield Marine Bank, 232 HL 
App. 14. 

Md. Hajewski v. Baltimore County 
Com'rs, 40 A.2d 316 Clautice v. 
Murphy, 26 A.2d 403, 180 Md. 558. 

Mich. Blundy v. .SQtna Life Ins. Co. 
of Hartford, Conn., 11 N.W.Sfl 908, 
307 Mich. 332 Ruby v. Buxton, 8 
N.W.2d 913, 305 Mich. 64 Merritt 
.v. Huron Motor Sales, 276 N.W. 
464, 2'82 Mich. 3*22 In re Lane's 
Estate, 274 N.W. 714, 281 Mich. 70 
Kriishew v. Meitz, 268 N.W. 736, 
276 Mich. 553 In re Cotcher's Es- 
tate, 264 N.W. 825, 274 Mich. 154 
Richards v. F. C. Matthews & 
Co., 239 N.W. 381, 256 Mich. 159 



King v. Bird, *22 N.W. 183, 245 
Mich. 93 West v. Detroit Termi- 
nal R, R., 201 N.W. *55, 229 Mich. 
$90. 

Minn. Reiter v. Porter, 13 N.W.2d 
372, "216 Minn. 479 Krause v. Chi- 
cago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 290 
N.W. 294, 207 Minn. 175 Brulla v. 
Cassady, 289 N.W. 404, 206 Minn. 
398 'Selover v. Selover, -277 N.W. 
205, 201 Minn. '562 Slawson v. 
Northern States Power Qo., 276 N. 
W. 275, 201 Minn, 313 Plotnik Y. 
Lewis, 2-61 N.W. 867, 195 Minn. 
130 Paulson v. Fisk, 261 N.W. 
182, 194 Minn. 507 First Nat. 
Bank v. Fox, 254 N.W. , 191 Minn. 
318 ^Flower v. King, 250 N.W. 43, 
189 Minn. 461 D'iddams v. Empire 
Milking Mach. Co., 240 N.W. 895, 
185 M*nn.. '270 Meisenhelder v. 
Byram, 227 N.W. 426, 178 Minn. 
417 Street v. Rosebrock, 217 N. 
W. 939, 173 Minn. 522 Opperud v. 
Byram, 217 N.W. 3T9, 175 Minn. 
378 Hawley Lumber Co. v. Nord- 
ling, 209 N.W. 484, I Minn. 70 
Funkley v. Ridgway, 197 N.W. 2*80, 
158 Minn. 265 Capretz v. Chicago 
Great Western R. Co., 195 N.W. 
Ml. 157 Minn. 29 Clough v. Chi- 
cago, M. & St P. Ry. Co.. 191 N.W. 
923, 1-54 Minn. 515. 

N.D. Cunningham v. Great North- 
ern Ry. Co., 14 N.W. ; 2d T53, 73 N. 
D. 315 Nelson v. Scherling, 300 
N.W. 803, 71 N.D. 337. . 

Ohio. Magyar v. Prudential Ins. 
Co. of America, 15 N.E.2d 144, 1'33 
Ohio St. 563 Spann v. W. U. Tel. 
Co., App., 62 N.E.2d 576 Brooks 
v. Sentle, 58 N.E.2d 234, 74 Ohio 
App. 231 Massachusetts Mut. 
Life Ins. Co. v. Hauk, 61 N.E.2d 
80, 72 Ohio App. 131 Garber v. 
Chrysler Corporation, App., "50 N. 
E.2d 416- Arthurs v. Citizens' Coal 
Co., App., 47 N.E.2d 654 Kelley v. 
Columbus Ry., Power & Light Co., 
24 N.E.2d 290, 62 Ohio App. 397. 

Pa, Rodia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. 
Co., 47 A.2d 162 Garrett v. Moore- 
McCormack Co., 23 A.2d 503, 844 
Pa. 69, reversed on other grounds 
63 S.Ct 246, 317 U.S. 239, 87 L. 
Ed. 239 White v. Consumer's Fi- 
nance Service, 15 A.2d 142, 339 
Pa. 417 In re Olshefskl's Estate, 
11 A.2d 487, 337 Pa. 420 Summit 
Hotel Co. v. National Broadcast- 
tog Co., 8 A.2d 302, 336 Pa. 182, 
124 A.L.R. 968 McDonough Y. 
Borough of Munhall, 200 A. 638, 
8311 Pa. '468 Smith v. Penn Tp. 
Mut Fire Ass'n of Lancaster 
County, 186 A. ISO, 323 Pa. 93 
James v. Columbia County Agri- 
cultural, Horticultural & Mechani- 
cal Ass'n, 184 A. 447, 321 Pa. 465 
Shapiro v. City of Philadelphia, 159 
A. 29, 306 Pa. 216 Gray v. Penn- 
sylvania R. Co., 141 A. 621. 293 
Pa. 28 West v. Manatawny Mut. 
Fire & Storm Ins. Co., 120 A. 763, 
277 Pa. 102 Stierheim v. Bechtold, 
43 A.2d 916, 158 Pa.Super. 107 

157 



Schroeder Bros. v. Sabeli, 40 A.2d 
170, 156 Pa.Super. 267 Hoefner v. 
Franklin Twist Co., 24 A.2d 457, 
147 Pa.Super. 4(W Albright v. 
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 17 A. 
2d 709, 143 Pa.Super. 158 Roeper 
v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 11 A.2d 
184, 138 Pa.Super. 283 Mitchell 
v. EUmaker, 4 A.2d 592, 134 flPa. 
Super. 583 Arndt v. Brockhausen, 
191 A. 362, 126 Pa.Super. 269 
Ellsworth v. Husband, 181 A. 90. 
119 Pa.'Super. 245 Milano v. BVty- 
ette Title & Trust Co., 96 Pa.Su- 
per. 310 Riddel v. Philadelphia 
Rapid Transit Co., 94 Pa.Super. 
371 Granato v. Wise, 94 Pa,Super. 
346 Aaron v. Smith, 90 Pa.Super. 
565 Hawk v. Hawk, 88 Pa, Super. 
581 Camp v. Commonwealth Ti- 
tle Insurance & Trust Co., 87 Pa. 
Super. 507 Humbert v. Meyers, 83 
Pa.Super. 496 Teller v. Hood, 81 
Pa.Super. 443 Tyrrell v. Philadel- 
phia Rapid Transit Co., 79 Pa.Su- 
per. 346 Landy v. 'Philadelphia 
Life Ins. Co., 78 Pa.Super. 47 
Wille v. London Guarantee & Ac- 
cident Co., 49 Pa.Dist. & Co. 93, 
32 DeLCo. 18 Piacine v. National 
Life Ins. Co., 14 PaJDist & Co. 21 
Wanamaker v. Beamesderfer, 5 
Pa.Dist & Co. 699, 26 Dauph.Co. 
120 Kaylor v. Central Trust Co. 
of Harrlsburg, 54 Dauph.Co. 366,. 
affirmed 36 A.2d 825, 154 Pa. Super. 
633 Harper v. Trainer Borough. 
Com.iPL, 33 DeLCo. 229 Jacobs v. 
Reading Co., Com.PL, 31 DeLCo. 
449 Hoover v. Montgomery, Com. 
PL, 29 DeLCo. 466-^Soder v. Hay- 
ward, Com.PL, 21 Erie Co. 99, 5? 
York Leg.Rec. 49 Keating v. 
Wagner, Com.PL, 42 Lack.Jur. 8^ 
Farrante v. Orrico, Com.PL, 2f' 
Leh.L.J. 239, affirmed 35 A.2d 575. 
154 Pa.Super. 165 McCormack v. 
Jermyn, ComjPL, 37 Luz.Leg.Reg. 
295 Stein v. Taylor, Com.PL, 5ff 
Montg.Co. 199 Eyster v. Lehigh 
Valley R. Co., Com.PL, 14 North- 
umb.Leg.J. 153 Pischke v. Bor- 
ough of Dormont, Com.Pl., 91 
Pittsb.Leg.J. 559, affirmed 33 A.2d 
480, 153 Pa.Super. 205 Seibert v. 
City of 'Pittsburgh, Com.PL, 90 
Pittsb.Leg.J. 599. 34 Mun.L.R. S& 
Schupp v. Yagle, Com.PL, 90 
Pittsb.Leg.J. S89, affirmed 27 A.2cl 
589, H49 Pa.Super. 464 White v. 
Oswald Werner & Sons Co., Com. 
PL, 88 Pittsb.Leg.J. 199 Gaskins 
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Com. 
PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 13 Mammorella v. 
Peca, Com.Pl., 4 Sch.Reg. 445, 52 
York Leg.Rec. 8 Rugens v. Jones, 
Com.PL, 54 York Leg.Rec. 8. 

S.C. Bohumir Xryl Symphony Band 
v. Allen University, 12 S.E.2d 712, 
196 S.C. 173. 

S.D. Deutscher v. Broadhurst, 12 N. 
W.2d 807 Gordinier v. Continen- 
tal Assur. Co., 7 N.W.2d 298 
Strain v. Shields, 25$ N.W. 268, 
63 S.D. 60 Kerr v. Staufer, 238 
N.W. 156, 59 S.D. 83: 



60 

Tex. Yarbrough v. Booher, 174 S. 
W.-2d 47, 141 Tex. 420, 150 A.L.R. 
1369 Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W. 
2d 207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on 
other grounds 172 S.W.2d 89, 141 
Tex. 253 Super-Cold Southwest 
Co. v. Elkins. 166 S.W.2d 97, 140 
Tex . 48 Rodriguez v. Higginboth- 
am-Bailey-Logan Co., 160 S.W.2d 
234, 138 Tex. 476 Sovereign Camp, 
W. O. W. v. Shuford, 124 S/W.2d 
344, 132 Tex. 376 Green v. Ligon, 
Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 742, error 
refused, no reversible error Mc- 
Kemie v. Waldrop, Civ.App., 190 
S.W.2d -384 Talley v. Bass- Jones 
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 
276, error refused Huie v. Lay, 
Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 823 D-Bar 
Pwanch v. Maxwell, Civ.App., 170 
S.W.2d 303, error refused Smith 
v. Safeway Stores, Civ.App., 167 S. 
W.2d 1044 Gatlin v. Southwestern 
Settlement & Development Corpo- 
ration, Civ.App. f 166 S.W.2d 150, 
error refused Manley v. Holt, Civ. 
App., 161 S.W,2d 857, error refused 
Boatman v. C. S. Hamilton Mo- 
tor Co., Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 390 
Carrell v. Dallas Railway & 
Terminal Co,, Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 
S69, error dismissed, Judgment 
correct Skelly Oil Co. v. John- 
ston, Civ.App., 151 S.W.-2d 863, 
error refused Barrett v. Com- 
mercial Standard Ins. Co., Civ. 
App., 145 S.W.2d 315 Heath v 
Blliston, Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 243 
error dismissed, judgment correct 
-Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v 
Glenn, Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 961 
error dismissed, Judgment correct 
Le Master v. Fort Worth Trans- 
it Co., Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 908 
reversed on other grounds, Sup. 
160 S.W.2d 224, 138 Tex. 512 
Klmmell v. Tipton, Civ.App., 142 
S,W.2d 421 McAfee v. Travis Gas 
Corporation, Civ.App., 131 S.W.-2d 
139, reversed on other grounds 153 
S.W.2d 442, 187 Tex. 314 Moran 
v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., Civ 
App., 127 S.W.2d 1012, error dis- 
missed, Judgment correct Gumm 
-v. Chalmers, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 
942, modified on other grounds 
Chalmers v. Gumra, 154 S.W.2c 
640, :137 Tex. 467 Collins v. Grif 
flth, Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 419, er- 
ror refused Whiteman v. Harris 
Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 699, error re 
fused Hamilton v. Travelers Ins 
Co., av.App., 116 S.W,2d 414, er- 
ror refused Walters v. Southern 
S. S. Co., Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 320 
error dismissed Sheppard v. City 
and County of Dallas Levee Im 
provement Dist.. Civ.App., 112 S 
W.2d 253 Panhandle Const. Co 
v. Continental Southland -Saving 
& Loan Ass'n, Civ.App., 110 S.W 
2d 632, error dismissed Johnso 
v. Moody, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2 
583, error dismissed James 
Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, Ci 
App., 98 S.W.2d 425, reversed o 



JUDGMENTS 

other grounds Texas Employers'! 
Ins. Ass'n v. James, 118 S.W.2d 
293, 131 Tex. 605 Jackson v. 
Schoenmann, Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 
225 Cain v. Dickson, Civ.App., 78 
S.W.2d 1095 Bade v. Pickens, 
Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 260, affirmed 
Pickens v. Backle, 104 S.W.2d 482, 
129 Tex. 610, rehearing denied 105 
S.W.2d 212, 129 Tex. 610 Acker- 
son v. Iferm & Home Savings & 
Loan Ass'n of Missouri, Civ.App., 
77 -S.W.2d 559, error refused- 
Freeman v. Schwenker, Civ.App., 
73 S.W.2d 609 Waitz v. XJvalde 
Rock Asphalt Co., Civ.App., 58 
S.W.2d 884 Southern Travelers' 
Ass'n v. Wright, Civ.App., 20 S. 
W.2d 1093, reversed on other 
grounds, Com. App., '34 S.W.2d 823. 

Wyo. O'Mally v. Eagan, 2 P.2d 
1063, 43 Wyo. 233, 77 A.L.R. 582, 
rehearing denied O'Malley v. Ea- 
gan, 5 P.2d 276, 43 Wyo. 350. 

33 C.J. p 1185 note 52. 

Purpose of rule 

The rule permitting Judgment not- 
withstanding verdict when motion 
tor directed verdict should have 
been sustained has for its purpose 
the giving of an opportunity to the 
;rial court to correct its error in 
Tailing to sustain a motion for a di- 
rected verdict. Friedman v. Colonial 
Oil Co., Iowa, 18 N.W.2d 196. 
Incontrovertible physical facts rule 
(1) Where physical facts are such 
that it is impossible for accident to 
kiave happened in manner claimed, 
Judge may set aside verdict for 
plaintiff and order one for defend- 
ant. 

Mich. Brenner v. Dykstra, 286 N. 
W. 623, 289 Mich. 301 Nelson v. 
Linderman, 284 N.W. 693, 288 
Mich. 186 Dzikowski v. Michigan 
Cent. R. R., 276 N.W. 470, A0 
Mich. 337. 
Minn. Karras v. Great Northern 
Ry. Co., 208 N.W. 655, 167 Minn. 
140. 

Pa. Weiner v. Philadelphia Rapid 
Transit Co., 165 A. 252, 310 Pa. 
415 Hawk v. Pennsylvania R 
Co., 160 A. 862, 307 Pa. 214 
Adams v. Gardiner, 160 A. 589 
SO 6 Pa. 576 Folger v. Pittsburgh 
Rys. Co., 139 A. 858, 291 Pa. 205 
Brett v. Philadelphia Transp 
Co., 36 A.2d 230, 154 Pa.Super. 429 

(2) The rule applies only in clear- 
est of cases and never wherfc there 
are variable and doubtful estimates 
and where testimony of witnesses 
is needed in order to apply evi 
dence to the issue. Mautino v. Pier- 
cedale Supply Co., 13 A.2d 51, 33? 
Pa. 435. 

(3) Testimony of plaintiff in au 
tomoblle accident case as to respec 
tive location of vehicles before col 
lision was held not to warrant Judg 
ment notwithstanding verdict, on 
ground of opposition to incontro 
vertible physical fiacts, in view o 

158 



49 O.J.S. 

different testimony given by plain- 
iff's witnesses. Hoff v. Tavani, 170 
, -384, 111 Pa.Super. 567. 

Test of right to Judgment notwith- 
tanding verdict is whether, at close 
>f trial, trial court should have giv- 
jn binding instructions. Pfeiffer v. 
Kraske, 11 A.2d 555, 139 Pa.Super. 
2 McDonough v. Borough of Mun- 
hall, 193 A. 326, 127 Pa.Super. 226, 
eversed x>n other grounds 200 A. 
138, 331 Pa, 468 Hahn v. Anderson, 
_87 A. 450, 123 GPa.Super. 4142, modi- 
fied on other grounds 192 A. 489, 
126 Pa. 463 Lessy v. Great Atlan- 
Jc & Pacific Tea Co., 183 A. 657, 121 
Pa.Super. 440 Ellsworth v. Hus- 
band, 181 A, 90, 119 Pa.Super. 245. 
Failure to object to immaterial tes- 
timony 

The fact that there was no ob- 
ection made to certain immaterial 
testimony at the time it was given 
would not preclude the trial court 
Trom sustaining motion for Judg- 
ment non obstante veredicto. In r 
Rentfro's Estate, 79 P.2d 1042, 103 

!olo. 400. 
Procedure held regular 

There was nothing irregular in 
trial court's procedure in receiving 
jury's attempt to answer three spe- 
cial issues of fact, in discharging 
Jury, which had answered one of 
the inquiries with a report that the 
others could not be agreed on, and 
in then granting Judgment non ob- 
sta-nte veredicto in plaintiff's favor 
on ground that plaintiff's prior mo- 
tion for peremptory instruction 
made at close of all evidence had 
been well taken and should have 
been granted instead of overruled, 
and Judgment was not subject to ob- 
jection that there had been a fur- 
ther trial of cause in the sense that 
additional evidence and argument 
had been heard by court subsequent 
to discharge of Jury and that court 
had entered Judgment on the verdict. 
Hutchison v. East Texas Oil Co., 
Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 205, error 
refused. 

Power similar to that of appellate 
court 

Power of trial court to render 
judgment non obstante veredicto is 
the same power exercised by appel- 
late court when it reverses and ren- 
ders a case, where trial court errone- 
ously refuses a peremptory instruc- 
tion. Johnson v. Moody, Tex.Civ. 
App., 104 S.W.2d 583, error dis- 
missed. 
Xn Oklahoma 

The court is not authorized to ren- 
der a Judgment notwithstanding the 
verdict because the evidence shows 
as a matter of law that the court 
should have directed a verdict in fa- 
vor, of the losing party.- St. Louis- 
San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Eakins, 
284 P. 866, 141 Okl. 256 Thomp- 
son v. Florence, 274 P. 671, 135 Okl. 
lie St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. 



49 O.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



is not warranted merely because the trial cotirt, in 
its discretion, ought to have granted a new trial. 1 ^ 

(2) Particular Matters Affecting Right to 
Remedy 

(a) Motion for directed verdict as pre- 

requisite to relief 

(b) Sufficiency of evidence to raise jury 

question 

(c) Other matters 

(a) Motion for Directed Verdict as Pre- 
requisite to Relief 
Under some statutes it Is prerequisite to a Judgment 



notwithstanding the verdict that the moving party has 
moved to direct a verdict In his favor at the close of the 
testimony. 

It is a prerequisite to a judgment notwithstand- 
ing the verdict, under some statutes, that the mov- 
ing party has moved to direct a verdict in his favor 
at the close of the testimony, 17 but it has been held 
that the motion for a directed verdict need not be 
in correct technical form, 1 * although a mere state- 
ment by counsel that he intended to ask for an in- 
structed verdict 1 ^ or that he thought a motion for 



Co. v. Bell, 273 -P. 243., 134 Okl. 25 
Odom v. Cedar Rapids Sav. Bank 
244 P. 758, 114 Okl. 126 McAleste 
v. Bank of McAlester, 218 P. 839 
95 Okl. 193. 

18. Minn. Building Ass'n of Du 
luth Odd Fellows v. Van Nispen 
20 N.W.2d 90 Mardorf v. Duluth 
Superior Transit Co., 261 N.W. 177 
194 Minn. 537. 

33 C.J. p 1186 note 58. 

17. Cal. In re Caldwell's Estate 
16 P.2d 139, 216 Cal. 694 In re 
Yale's Estate, 4 P.2d 153, '214 Cal 
115 Cushman v. Cliff House, 250 
P. 575, 79 CaLApp. 572- Machado 
v. Weston, 14 P.2d 907, 126 Cal 
App. 661 In re Easton's Estate, 5 
P.2d 635, 118 Cal.App. 659. 

Idaho. Helgeson v. Powell, 34 P.2d 
957, 54 Idaho 667. 

Md. Hajewski v. Baltimore County 
Com'rs, 40 A.2d 316. 

Mich. Forman v. Prudential Ins. 
Co. of America, 16 N.W.2d 696, 
310 Mich. 145. 

Minn. Wilcox v. Schloner, 25 N.W. 
2d 19 Johnson v. Whitney, 14 N. 
W.2d 765, 217 Minn. 468 Raspler 
v. Sen*, 11 N.W.-2d 440, 215 Minn. 
596 Callahan v. City of Duluth, 
267 N.W. 361, 197 Minn. 403 
Gendler v. S. S. Kresge Co., 263 
N.W. 925, 195 Minn. 578 Olson v. 
Heise, 260 N.W. 227, 194 Minn. 280, 
rehearing denied 261 N.W. 476, 194 
Minn. 280 Anderson v. Newsome, 
258 N.W. 157, 193 Minn. 157 Don- 
nelly v. Stepka, 257 N.W. 605, 
193 Minn. 11 Romann v. Bender, 
252 N.W. 80, 190 Minn. 419 Kro- 
cak v. Krocak, 249 N.W. 671, 189 
Mi-nn. 346 Timmins v. Pfeifer, 
230 N.W. 260, 180 Minn. IJohn- 
son v. Hegland, 222 N.W. 272, 175 
Minn. 592 Wilcox v. Wiggins, 207 
N.W. 23, 166 Minn. 124 Tencho v. 
Kruly, 197 N.W. 752, 158 Minn. 408 
Friedland v. Hacking, 197 N.W. 
751, 158 Minn. 389 Funkley v. 
Ridgway, 197 N.W. 280, 158 Minn. 
265 Young v. Yeates, 190 N.W. 
791, 153 Minn. 366. 
N.D. Baird v. Stephens, 228 N.W. 
212, 58 N.D. 812 Gross v. MIlleT, 
200 N.W. 1012. 51 NJD. 755 Car- j 



son State Bank v. Grant Grain Co 
197 N.W. 146, 50 N.p. 558 Enni 
v. Retail Merchants' Ass'n Mut 
Fire Ins. Co., 156 N.W. 234, 3 
N.D. 20. 

33 C.J. p 1186 note 59. 
Counterclaim 

Plaintiffs' motion for a Judgmen 
notwithstanding verdict was prop- 
erly granted despite plaintiffs' fail- 
ure to move for a directed verdict 
on defendant's counterclaim since 
plaintiffs' motion for a directed ver- 
dict on his complaint automatical 
Iy included the counterclaim pleaded 
by defendant as a defense in his 
answer, and there is no requirement 
that it be especially mentioned in a 
motion for a directed verdict made 
by plaintiff on his complaint. Doyle 
v. McPherson; 97 P.2d 2J49, 36 Cal 
App.2d 81. 
Motion held sufficient 



Cal. In re Ross' Estate, 22 P.2d 

l. 131 CaLApp. 635. 
Proposition not raised 
Where plaintiff's motion for Judg- 



ment notwithstanding 
pursuant to rule was 



the verdict 
based on a 



proposition not raised in plaintiff's 
motion for a directed verdict, situa- 
tion was the same as though plain- 
tiff had made no motion for a direct- 
ed verdict and plaintiff had no right 
to the remedy. Friedman v. Colo- 
nial Oil Co., Iowa, 18 N.W.2d 196. 

Judgment held erroneous where 
record disclosed that no request for 
peremptory instruction was made. 
Hall v. Barrett, Tex.Civ.App., 126 
S.W.2d 1045. 
In. Pennsylvania 

(1) Party presenting no written 
point for binding instructions was 
n no position to move for judgment 
non obstante veredicto. Roberts v. 
Washington Trust Co., 170 A. 291, 
13 Pa, 584, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct. 
78, 292 U.S. 608, 78 L.Ed. 1469, 
and rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 857, 
92 U.S. 613, 78 L.Ed. 1472 Trad- 
es' Securities Co. v. Kalil, 162 A. 
99, 107 Pa.Super. 215 Common- 
wealth v. Keller, 162 A. 474, 106 Pa. 
Super. 458 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
Osborn, 161 A. 756, 106 Pa.Super. 

159 



45 Carl v. Grand Union Co., 161 A. 
429, 105 Pa.Super. 371 Smith v. 
Graham, 101 Pa.Super. 604 Good 
Fellowship Building & Loan Ass'n, 
v. Crown Building & Loan Ass'n, 
101 Pa.Super. 393 Loder v. Hamil- 
ton Tp., 100 Pa.Super. 103 Petro- 
leum Fuel Engineering Co. v. Hemp- 
hill, 94 Pa.Super. 362 Thomas F. 
Leonard Co. v. Scranton Coca-Cola 
Bottling Co., 90 Pa.Super. 360 Pe- 
terson v. Coles, 81 Pa.Super. 277 
Ransberry v. Fuliner, 80 Pa. Super. 
512 Standard Brewing Co. v. Knapp 
Co., 79 Pa.Super. 252 Waugaman 
v. Henry, 75 Pa.Super. 94 Tomko 
v. Union Township, 44 Pa.Co. 631, 
12 Sch.Leg.Reg. 341 Roney v. 
Thompson, Com.PL, 27 Del.Co. 589 
Diehl v. Central Printing Co., Com. 
PL, 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 430 Mammorel- 
la v. Peca, Com.Pl.. 4 Sch.Reg. 445, 
52 York Leg.Rec. S Acks v. Axe, 
Com.Pl., 52 York Leg.Rec. 41. 

(2) Defect in that points of law 
on which motion for judgment non 
obstante veredicto was based were 
presented by oral request is not 
cured by order correcting record 
nunc pro tune. Thomas F. Leonard 
Co. v. Scranton Coca-Cola Bottling 
Co., 90 Pa.Super. 360. 

(3) Motion for judgment for de- 
fendant, made after plaintiff rested, 
and followed by presentation of de- 
fendant's case, is not according to 
statute. Updegrave v. Alex, 94 Pa. 
Super. 29, 

(4) Procedure prescribed by stat- 
ute respecting entry of judgment on 
whole record was not intended as 
substitute for nonsuit. Updegrave 
v. Alex supra. 

(5) Record was held to disclose 
hat, as basis for judgment notwith- 
itanding verdict, defendant had sub- 
mitted written points for binding 

nstructions. Weigand v. Standard 
Motor Co., 167 A. 493, 109 Pa,Super. 
56. 

8. Md. Atlantic Refining Co. v. 
Forrester, 25 A.2d 667, 180 Md. 
517. 

9. Cal. In re Caldwell's Estate, 
16 P.2d 139, 216 Cal. 694. 



60 



JUDGMENTS 



a directed verdict would be in order 20 is not suffi- 
cient There is no sufficient compliance with the 
statute where the motion for directed verdict was 
made, over objection of opposing counsel, after the 
jury had returned its verdict; 21 and the deficiency 
cannot be corrected by a nunc pro tune order. 22 
A requested instruction for a verdict and the re- 
fusal thereof are not equivalent to a motion for a 
directed verdict and an order denying the motion 
which, by statute, are made prerequisite to a judg- 
ment notwithstanding the verdict. 28 



49 C.J.S. 

(b) Sufficiency of Evidence to Raise Jury 
Question 

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not be 
entered where the evidence raises an issue for the Jury, 
as where there is evidence reasonably tending to sup- 
port the verdict or where there Is a substantial conflict 
in the evidence. 

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not 
be entered where the evidence raises an issue for 
the jury, 24 as where there is evidence reasonably 
tending to support the verdict ; 25 and a like rule ap- 



20. Cal. Hallinan v. Prindle, 29 P. 
2d 202, 220 Oal. 46. 

21. Minn. Wilcox v. Schloner, 23 
N.W.2d 19. 

22. Minn. Wilcox v. Schloner, su- 
pra, 

23. Cal. Hallinan v. Prindle, 29 P. 
2d 202, 220 Cal. 46 In re Cald- 
well's Estate. 16 P.2d 139, 2-16 
Cal. 694 Machado v. Weston, 14 
P.2d 907, 126 CaLApp. 661 In re 
Easton's Estate, 5 P.2d 685, 118 
CaLApp. 659. 

24. U.S. Shane v. Commercial Cas- 
ualty Ins. Co., D.C.Pa., 48 F.Supp. 
151, affirmed, C.C.A., -Shane v. 
Barger, 132 P.2d 644. 

Colo. De Boer v. Olmsted, 260 P. 
108, 82 Colo. 36-9. 

111. Belcher v. Citizens Coach Co., 
57 N.B.2d 659, 324 IlLApp. 226 
Vieceli v. Cummings, 54 N.E.2d 
717, 322 IlLApp. 559 Janelunas v. 
John Hancock Mut Life Ins. Co., 
9 N.E.2d 257, 291 IlLApp. 604 
Hicks v. Swift & Co., 1 N.E.2d 918, 
285 IlLApp. 1. 

Mich. Thelen v. Mutual Benefit 
Health & Accident Ass'n, 7 N.W. 
2d 128, 0!4 Mich. 17 Freedman 
v. Burton, 274 N.W. 766, 281 Mich. 
208 Davis v. Belmont Creamery- 
Co., 274 N.W. 749, 281 Mich. 165 
In re Lane's Estate, 274 N.W. 714, 
281 Mich. 70. 

Minn. Solberg v. Minneapolis St. 
Ry. Co., 7 N.W.2d 926/ 214 Minn. 
274 Weber v, St Anthony Falls 
Water Power Co., 7 N.W.2d 339, 
214 Minn. 1. 

N.D. La Bree v. Dakota Tractor & 
Equipment Co., 288 N.W. 476, 69 
N.D. 561 Olstad v. Stockgrowers 
Credit Corporation, 266 N.W. 109, 
66 N.D. 416. 

Ohio. Flynn v. Sharon Steel Corpo- 
ration, -50 N.E.2d 519, 142 Ohio St 
145 Chenoweth v. Gary, App., 
31 N.E.2& 716, appeal dismissed 
23 N.E.2d 949, 136 Ohio St. 123. 

Or. Parker v. Pettit, 138 P.2d 592, 
171 Or. 481. 

Pa. Dempsey v. First Nat. Bank of 
Scranton, 46 A.2d 160, 353 Ba. 473 
Reiser v. Smith, 195 A. 56, 328 
Pa. 29-2 Naugle v. Reading Co., 
21 A.2d 109, 145 Pa.-Super. 341 
Kissinger v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.. 



180 A. 137, 119 Pa.Super. 110 
Letvin v. Phoenix Ins. Co,, 87 Pa. 
Super. 402 Groskin v. Knight, 8 
PaJDist. & Co. 413, affirmed 138 A. 
843, 290 Pa. 274 Bayer v. Cron- 
auer, Com.PL, 37 Luz.Leg.Reg. 
261. 

S.D. Mills v. Armstrong, 13 N.W.2d 
726. 

Tex. Casey v. Jones. Civ.App., 189 
S.W.2d 51'5 Maryland Casualty 
Co. v. Stewart, Civ.App., 164 S.W. 
2d 800, error refused Johnson v. 
Stickney, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 921 
Citizens State Bank of Houston 
v. Giles, Civ.App., 145^S.W.2d 899, 
error dismissed Barrett v. Com- 
mercial Standard Ins. Co., Civ. 
App., 145 S.W.2d 315 Gumm v. 
Chalmers, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 
942, modified on other grounds 
Chalmers v. Gumm, 154 S.W.2d 
640, 137 Tex. 467 Johnson v. 
Moody, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 583, 
error dismissed Christopher v. 
City of El Paso, Civ.App., 98 S.W. 
2d 394, error dismissed Spence 
v. National Life & Accident Ins. 
Co., Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 212. 

33 C.J. p 1184 note 51 [c] (2), p 
1185 note 56. 

25. Fla. Norwich Union Indemnity 
Co. v. Willis, 168 So. 418, 124 Fla. 
137, 127 Fla. 238. 

Idaho. In re Randall's Estate, 70 
P.2d 389, 58 Idaho 1'43. 

111. Berg v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
62 N.R2d 676, 391 111. 52 Todd 
v. S. S. Kresge Co., 52 N.E.2d 206. 
384 111. 524 Neering v. Illinois 
Cent. R. Co., 50 N.E.2d 497, 383 
111. 366, mandate conformed to 53 
N.E.2d 271, 321 IlLApp. 625 Gnat 
v. Richardson, 39 N.E.2d 837. 378 
111. 626 Walaite v. Chicago, R. I. 
& P. Ry. Co., 33 N.E.2d 119, 376 
111. 59 Anderson v. Krancic, 66 N. 
E.2d 316, 328 IlLApp. 364 Dickin- 
son v. Rockford Van Orman Hotel 
Co., 63 N.E.2d 257, 326 IlLApp. 
686 Hedden v. Farmers Mut. Re- 
Ins. Co. of Chicago, I1L, 60 N.E;2d 
110, 325 IlLApp. 335 Molitor v. 
Chicago Title & Trust Co., 59 N.E. 
695, '325 IlLApp. 124 Hauck v. 
First Nat Bank of Highland Park, 
55 N.R2d 56'5, 323 IlLApp. 300 
Bone v. Publix Great States Thea- 
tres, 54 N.E.2d 98, 322 IlLApp. 178 

160 



Leif v. Fleming, 52 N.E.2d 606, 
321 IlLApp. 297 Schwickrath v. 
Lowden, 46 N.E:2d 162, 317 111. 
App. 431 Gleason v. Cunningham, 
44 N.E.2d 940, 316 IlLApp. 286 
Lomax v. Brooks, 43 N.E.2d 421, 
315 IlLApp. 567 Gant v. McDow- 
ell, 38 N.E.2d 530, 312 IlLApp. 378 
Ramming v. Belt Ry. Co. of Chi- 
cago, 36 N.E.2d 275, 311 Hl.App. 
367 Taylor v. Municipal Em- 
ployes Ins. Ass'n of Chicago. 34 
N.E.2d 126, 310 IlLApp. *8S 
Delling v. Lake View Hospital 
Ass'n and Training School for 
Nurses, 33 N.E.2d 915, 310 IlLApp, 
155 Boyda Dairy Co. v. Continen- 
tal Casualty Co., 20 N.E.2d 339, 
299 IlLApp. 469 Delyda v. Metro 
politan Life Ins. Co., 18 N.E.Scl 
562, 298 IlLApp. 623 Gardiner v. 
Richardson, 11 N.E.2d 824, 293 111. 
App. 40 McNeill v. Harrison f- 
Sons, 2 N.E.2d 959, 286 IlLApp. 
120. 

Kan. Underbill v. Motes, 165 P.2d 
218, 160 Kan. 679 Groom v. 
Bertoglio, 4 P.2d 992, 143 Kan. 
296. 

Mich. Richards v. F. C. Matthews 
& Co., 239 N.W. 381, 2'56 Mich. 159 
Lewis v. Beaverton Power Co., 
204 N.W. 768, 231 Mich. 585 In 
re Knox's Estate, 190 N.W. 23S, 
220 Mich. 469. 

Minn. Building Ass'n of Duluth Odd 
Fellows v. Van Nispen, 20 N.W.2d 
90, 220 Minn. 504 Kundiger v. 
Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 17 
N.W.2d 49, 219 Minn. 25 Kundi- 
ger v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 
15 N.W.2d 487, 218 Minn. 273 
Eklund v. Kapetas, 11 N.W.2d 805, 
216 'Minn. 79 Solberg v. Minneap- 
olis St Ry. Co., 7 N.W.2d 926,, 
214 Minn. 274 Goldfine v. John-' 
son, 294 N.W. 459, 208 Minn. 449 
Peterson v. Minnesota Power & 
Light Co., 288 N.W. 588, 206 Minn. 
268 Armstrong v. Brown Bros., 
Kootz & Co., 277 N.W. 348, 202 
Minn. 26 Mardorf v. Duluth-Su- 
perior Transit Co., 261 N.W. 177, 
194 Minn. 537 Olson v. Heise, 260 
N.W. 227, 194 Minn. 280, rehearing 
denied 261 N.W. 476, 194 Minn. 
280 Kingsley v. Alden, 269 N,W. 
7, 193 Minn. 503 Stebbins v. 
Friend. Crosby & Go* 958 N.W. 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



824. 193 Minn. 44 6 Donnelly v. 
Stepka, 257 N.W. 505, 193 Minn. 11 
First Nat. Bank v. Fox, 254 N, 
W. 8, 191 Minn. 318 Thorn v. 
Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 252 N.W. 
660, 190 Minn. 622 Stritzke v. 
Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 
251 N.W. 532, 190 Minn. 323 
Trovatten v. Hanson, 213 N.W. 
536, 171 Minn. 130 Jepson v. Cen- 
tral Business Men's Ass'n, 209. N. 
W. 487, 168 Minn. 19 Nelson V. 
Johnson, 209 N.W. 320, 167 Minn. 
430 Farmers' & Merchants' State 
Bank of New York Mills v. Na- 
tional Surety Co., 203 N.W. 969, 
163 Minn. 257 Automotive Co. v. 
National Fire Ins. Co. of Hart- 
ford, 202 N.W. 32, 162-Mlnn. 34 
Dairy Region Land Co. v. Paul- 
son, 199 N.W. 398, 160 Minn. 42 
Thomas Keating Co. v. Inland 
Steel Co., 195 N.W. 1016, 157 Minn. 
243 Stoneman v. Smyth, 190 N. 
W. 605, 15-3 Minn. 331. 

Mo. American Employers Ins. Co. 
of Boston, Mass., v. Manufactur- 
ers & Mechanics Bank of Kansas 
City, 85 S.W.2d 174, 229 Mo.App. 
994. 

N.D. Maloney v. City of Grand 
Forks, 1'5 N.W.2d 769, 73 N.D. 445 
Equity Elevator & Trading Co. 
v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 
250 N.W. 529, 64 N.D. 95 Hughes 
v. Wachter, 238 N.W. 776, 61 N.D. 
513 McDonnell v. Monteith, 231 
N.W. 854, 59 N.D. 750 Vallely v. 
Devaney, 194 N.W. 903, 49 N.D. 
1107. 

Ohio. Wilkeson v. Erskin & Son, 61 
N.E.2d 301, 145 Ohio St 213 Paul 
v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 
App. f 64 N.E.2d 124 Morgan v. 
Hunsicker, App., 60 N.E.2d 509 
Reitenour v. McClain, App., 57 N. 
E.2d 78 Wilms v. Klein, App., 
49 N.E.2d 76 Holmes v. Em- 
ployers' Liability Assur. Corpora- 
tion, Limited, of London, England, 
43 N.E.2d 746, 70 Ohio App. 239 
Lehrer v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 20 
Ohio N.P.,N:S.. 481. 

Okl. Stanfield v. Lincoln, 1 P.2d 
387, 150 Okl. 289 Reid v. Reid, 
241 P. 797, 115 Okl. 58 Oklahoma 
Products Co. v. Cotton Products 
Co., 239 P. 656, 111 Okl. 2-57. 

Or. French v. State Industrial Ac- 
cident Commission, 68 P.2d 466, 
156 Or. 443. 

Pa. Kummerlen v. Pustilnik, 45 A. 
2d 27 Cherry v. Mitosky, 45 A.2d 
23 Kindt v. Reading Co., 43 A. 
2d 1145, 352 Pa. 419 Garden v. 
Philadelphia Transp. Co., 41 A.2d 
667, 351 Pa. 407 Young v. Brad- 
ford County Telephone Co., 38 A. 
2d 47, 356 Pa. 62 MacDonald v. 
Pennsylvania R. Co., -36 A.2d 492, 
348 Pa. 558 Ashworth v. Hannum, 
32 A.2d 407, 347 Pa. 893 Frew v. 
Barto, 26 A.2d 905, 345 Pa. 217 
Brown v. George, 25 A.2d 691, 
344 Pa. , 39-9 Wascavage v. Sus- 
queharma Collieries Co., 23 A.2d 

49 C. J.S.-11 



509, 343 Pa. 529 Srednick v. Sy- 
lak, 23 A.2d 333, 34.3 Pa. 486 Mor- 
ton v. Borough of Dormont, 22 A. 
2d 738, 343 Pa. 432 Welch v. 
Sultez, 13 A.2d 399, 338 Pa. '583 
Pearlman v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 9 A.2d 432, 336 Pa, 444 
'Powell v. Ligon, 5 A.2d 373, 33'4 
Pa. 250 Kennedy v. Southern 
Pennsylvania Traction Co., 3 A.2d 
395, 333 Pa. 406 lacovino v. Ca- 
terino, 2 A.2d 828, 332 Pa. 556 
Voltz v. General Motors Accept- 
ance Corporation, 2 A.2d 697, 332 
Pa. 141 Hahn v. Anderson, 192 A. 
489, 326 Pa." 465 Murray v. City 
of Clairton, 191 A. 618, 326 Pa. 
180 Smith v. Penn Tp. Mut Fire 
Ass'n of Lancaster County, 186 
A. 130, 323 Pa. 93 Majewski v. 
Lempka, 183 A. 777, 321 Pa. 369 
Walters v. Western & Southern 
Life Ins. Co., 178 A. 499, 318 Pa. 
882 Strong v. Jarka Corporation 
of Philadelphia, 176 A. 732, 817 
Pa. 317 Bi^yski v. Schreiber, 171 
A. 614, 314 -Pa. 35:3 Keck v. Phil- 
adelphia Rapid Transit Co., 171 A. 
478, 3T4 Pa. 389 Ferguson v. 
Charts, 170 A. 131, 313 Pa. 164 
Vlasich v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 
161 A. 70, 307 Pa. 255 Guilinger 
v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 155 A. 293, 
304 Pa. 140 Kellogg v. Pennsyl- 
vania R. Co., 155 A. 296, 304 Pa, 
149 Darlington v. Bucks County 
Public Service Co., 15'4 A. 501, 303 
Pa. 288 Freedom Oil Works Co. v. 
Williams, 152 A. 741, 302 Pa. 51 
Kuhns v. -New York Life Ins. 
Co., 147 A. 76, 297 Pa. 418 ^Statler 
v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 145 A. 861, 
296 Pa. 222 Kent v. General 
Chemical Co., 131 A. 588, 285 Pa. 
34 Dunn v. Hatch Motors Co., 126 
A. 349, 281 Pa. 224 Maisel v. 
Patrick Corr & Sons, 121 A. 61, 277 
Pa. 331 Davis v. Carroll-Porter 
Boiler & Tank Co., 119 A, T42, 276 
Pa, 71 Moyer v. Pittsburgh, M. 
& B. Ry. Co., 119 A. 469, 275 Pa. 
363 Ondo v. Greek Catholic Un- 
ion of Russian Brotherhoods of 
U. S. A., 38 A.2d 370, 155 Pa.Su- 
per. 492 Hindes v. City of Pitts- 
burgh, 38 A.2d 420, 155 Pa.Super. 
314 Holland v. Kohn, 38 A,2d 500, 
155 Pa.Super. 95 Dick v. West 
Penn Rys. Co., 83 A.2d 792, 153 Pa. 
Super. 281 Shugats v. Metropoli- 
tan Life Ins. Co., 33 A.2d 650, 153 
Pa.Super. 51 Trostel v. Reading 
Steel Products Corporation, 31 A.2d 
909, 152 Pa.Super. 273 Gerber v. 
Jones, 30 A.2d 534, 151 Pa.Super. 
489 Smith v. Coca Cola Bottling 
Co., 33 A.2d 488, 152 PaJSuper. 445 
Smolinsky v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 26 A,2d 131. 149 Pa.Super. 
72 Moyer v. Reading Co., 24 A.2d 
48, 147 Pa.Super. 178 Watson v. 
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 21 A.2d 
503, 145 Pa.Super. 86S Blair, to 
Use of Davis, v. Adamchick, 21 A. 
2d 107, 145 Pa.Super. 125 Szidor v. 
Greek Catholic Union of Russian 

161 



Brotherhoods of U. S., 21 A.2d 104, 
145 Pa.Super. 251 Steingart v. 
Kaney, 19 A.2d 499, 144 Fa.Super. 
534 Hanrahan v. John Hancock 
Mut Life Ins. Co., 18 A.2d 512, 
T43 Pa.Super. 557 Willetts v. But- 
ler Tp., 15 A.2d 392, 141 Pa.Super. 
394 Mitchell v. First Nat. Bank, 
7 A.2d 513, 136 Pa.Super. 467 
Johnson v. Staples, 5 A.2d 433, 135 
Pa.Super. 274 Qu inter v. Bloch, 
197 A. 539, 130 Pa.Super. 348 
Kovacs v. Ajhar, 196 A. 876, 130 
Pa.Super. 149 Tomko v. Feldman, 
194 A. 338, 128 Pa.Super. 429 
Lessy v. Great Atlantic & Pacific 
Tea Co., 183 A. 657, 121 Pa.Super. 
440 Young v. Yellow Cab Co., 180 
A. 63, 118 Pa.Super. 495 Rzasa v. 
Gorniak, 174 A. 659, 115 Pa.Super. 
47 Klein v. Weissberg, 174 A. 
636, 114 Pa.Super. 569 Williams 
v. Southern Mut Ins. Co. of -Lan- 
caster County, 164 A. 128, 108 Pa. 
Super. 148, affirmed 166 A. 582, 
312 Pa. 114 Turner v. Philadel- 
phia Rapid Transit Co., 100 Pa, 
Super. 291 Loder v. Hamilton Tp., 
100 Pa.Super. 103-^Smith v. Walat 
& Stutznmn, 99 Pa. Super. 147 
Columbia Fur Co. v. Needro, 97 
Pa.Super. 389 Robert M. Green & 
Sons Co. v. Hazlett & Johnston, 96 
Pa.Super. 460 Tompkins v. Head- 
ley, 96 Pa.Super. 133 Wright v. 
Borough of Belief onte, 95 Pa.Su- 
per. 196 Kaufman v. Lehman, 94 
Pa.Super. 306 Curry v. Wolsten- 
croft, 93 Pa.Super. 13 Boley 
Boley v. Borough of Glassport, 91 
Pa.Super. 247 Philadelphia In- 
quirer Co. v. Sabia, 90 Pa.Super. 
266 Donovan v. People's Natural 
Gas Co., 84 Pa.Super. 51 Jones 
v. East Fayette Coal Co., 83 Pa. 
Super. 341 Voltz v. Erie County, 
81 Pa,Super. 467 Harris & Konick 
v. Gottlieb, 81 Pa.Super. 186 
Molinaro v. Davis, 80 Pa.Super. 
597 Robert J. Ward & Co. v. Mil- 
ler, 80 Pa.Super. 259 Flood v. 
Connor, 80 Pa.Super. 54 Hawkins 
v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 
79 Pa. Super. 453 Weaver v. Col- 
lins* Adm'x, 79 Pa.Super. 289 
Harter v. Altoona & Logan Valley 
Electric Ry. Co., 79 Pa.Super. 25 
Swartz v. Stein & Levy, 78 Pa, 
'Super. 515 Fissell v. Hines, 78 
Pa,Super. 179 Cloud v. Philadel- 
phia & West Chester Traction Co., 
78 Pa.Super. 85, followed in 78 
Pa.Super. 92f Clark v. Neshan- 
nock Stone Co., 41 Pa-Super. 34 
Barnhart v. Herring, 54 Pa.Dist 
& Co. 526 DeCheck v. Clancy, 53 
Pa.Dist & Co. 618, 93 Pittsb.Leg. 
J. 305, 59 York Leg.Rec, 87 Ros- 
enberger v. Butz, 37 PaJDist. & 
Co. 406, 18 Leh.L.J. 3S5 Hones- 
dale Nat Bank v. Klein, 37 Fa. 
Diet & Co. 370, 41 Lack.Jur. 191 
Wade v. Cleavenger, 34 FaJDist 
& Co. 297, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 627 
Dommes v. Zuroski, Com.PL, 85 
Berks Co. 429, affirmed 98 A,2d 73, 



60 



JUDGMENTS 



49 0. J. S. 



350 Pa, 206 Parsons v. Motor 
Freight Express, Com.Pl., 35 Berks 
Co. 245 Bekelja v. James E. 
Strates Shows, Inc., Com.Pl., 55 
Dauph.Co. 317 Sanders V: Brown, 
Com.PL, 54 Dauph.Co. 272 Ans- 
tine v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Com. 
PI., 62 Dauph.Co. 372 West V, 
Morgan, Com.Pl., 52 Dauph.Co. 361, 
affirmed 27 A.2d 46, 345 Pa. 61 
MoKenzie Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit 
Co. of Maryland, Com.PL, 52 
Dauph.Co. 210 Frew v. Barto, 
Com.Pl., 52 Dauph.Co. 147, affirmed 
26 A.2d 905, 345 Pa. 217 Greiner 
v. Turby, Com.Pl., 52 Dauph. Co. 
131 McGarvey v. Mages, Com.Pl., 
50 Dauph.Co. 128 Pote v. Dauphin 
Deposit Trust Co., Com.Pl., 49 
Dauph.Co. 307 Eckenrode v. Pro- 
duce Trucking Co., Com.Pl., 49 
Dauph.Co. 271 Weiser v. Michlo- 
vitz, Com.Pl., 48 Dauph. 106 Pen- 
nell v. Bainbridge, Com.PL, 47 
Dauph.Co. 224 Webb v. Hess, 
Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.Co. 84 Stuart 
v. Ashenfelter, Com.Pl., 46 Dauph. 
Co. 31 McLaughlin v. Southern 
Pennsylvania Traction Co., Com. 
PL, 32 DeLCo. 252 Freeman v. 
MacDonald, Com.Pl., 31 Del.Co. 165 
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. 
v. Dreslin, Com.PL, 30 DeLCo. 351 
Bair v. Newgeon, Com.PL, 29 
DeLCo. 544 Hoover v. Montgom- 
ery, Com.PL, 29 DeLCo. 466 Maher 
v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., Com. 
PL, 29 Del.Co. 267 Struchen v. 
Thomas, Com.PL, 23 Brie Co. 253 
Trebucza v. Nelson, Com.Pl., 22 
Erie Co. 4 Palmer v. City of Brie, 
Com.PL, 20 Erie Co. 400, affirmed 
9 A.2d -378, 337 Pa. 5 Morrison 
v. Gordon, Com.PL, 20 Erie Co. 
350 "Madigan v. H. B. Sproul 
Constr. Co., Com.PL, 44 Lack.Jur. 
73, 4 Monroe L.R. 123 Grabin v. 
Caffrey, Com.PL, 42 Lack.Jur. 194 
Keating v. Wagner, Com.PL, 42 
Lack.Jur. 84 nyder v. Passen, 
Com.PL. 42 Lack.Jur. 39 Crystal 
& Son v. Gerson, Com.PL, 41 Lack. 
Jur. 185 Glidden Co. v. Sullum, 
Com.PL, 40 Lack.Jur. 191 Fegley 
v. Vogel-Ritt, Inc., Com.PL, 21 
Leh.L.J. 306 Hamm v. Teyka, 
Com.PL, 18 Leh.L.J. 218 Palas- 
chak v. Borro, Com.PL, 36 Luz.Leg. 
Reg. 361 Fierro v. Friel, Com. 
PL, 35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 186 Wildon- 
er v. Sutton, Com.PL, 34 Luz.Leg. 
Reg. 118 Szusta v. Krawiec, Com. 
PL, 34 Luz.Leg.Re'g. 61, affirmed 
19 A.2d 495, W4 Pa,Super. 530 
Watson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. 
Co., Com.PL, 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 463 
Morris v. White, Com.Pl., 33 
Luz.Leg.Reg. 4-37 Wereszinski v. 
Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 
Com.PL, 32 Luz.Leg.Reg. 412 
Harr v. G-aydos, ConxPL, 82 Luz. 
Leg.Reg. 169 Schenker v. Indem- 
nity Ins. Co. of North America, 
Com.PL, 2 Monroe L.R. 141, 10 
Som.Leg.J. 180, affirmed 16 A.2d 
304, 340 Pa. 81 Bruno v. Buffalo 



Amusement Co., Com.PL, 6 Montg. 
Co. 51 Wissahickon Building & 
Loan Ass'n v. Du Bois, Com.PL, 
54 Montg.Co. 404 Silvaoao v. Met- 
ropolitan Life Ins. Co., Com.PL, 
14 Northumb.L.J. 321, reversed on 
other grounds 5 A.2d 423, 135 Pa. 
Super. 260 Diggan v. York-Buf- 
falo Motor Express, Com.PL, 13 
Northumb.Leg'.J. 381 Ciaffoni v, 
Middlebrook, Com.PL, 94 Pittsb. 
Leg.J. 16 Humenick v. Carfagna, 
Com.PL, 94 Pittsb.Leg.J. 6, 59 
York Leg.Rec. 163 Urben v. 
Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Com.PL, 93 
Pittsb.Leg.J. 439 Kuhn v. Massa- 
chusetts Mut. Life Ins., Com.PL, 
89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 544 ^mith v. 
Prudential Ins. Co., Com. PL, 87 
PittsbXeg.J. 367 VaUino v. Klein, 
Com.PL, 87 Pittsb.Leg.J. 227 
Wargovich v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., Com.PL, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 
459, affirmed 7 A.2d 568, 136 Pa- 
Super. 421 pern v. Globe & Re- 
public Ins. Co., Com.PL, 85 Pittsb. 
Leg.J. 774 Hoy v. Wolfgang, 
Com.PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 77 Schulkind 
v. Dropkin, Com.PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 17 
Gaidos v. McCans, Com.PL, 22 
Wash.Co. 140 Mellon v. Singer 
Sewing Mach. Co., Com.PL, 22 
Wash.Co. 75, affirmed 25 A.2d 807, 
344 Pa. 3'90 Mesko v. Prudential 
Ins. Co., Com.PL, 20 Wash.Co. 133 
Sutherland v^ Bellairt, Com.PL, 
20 Wash.Co. 103 Stage v. Dailey, 
Com.PL, 20 Wash.Co. 51 Kirr v. 
Suwak, 20 Wash.Co. 1, affirmed 9 
A.2d 735, 336 Pa. 561 Dinch v. 
Pennsylvania R. Co., Com.PL, 19 
Wash.Co. 174 Snee v. Dunn, Com. 
PL, 19 Wash.Co. 94 Carnegie v. 
Townsend, Com.PL, 18 Wash.Co. 
190 White v. Davies, Com.PL, 18 
Wash.Co. 179 McElfresh v. 
O'Brien, Com.PL, 18 Wash.Co. 114 
Dunmire v. Fitzgerald, Com.PL, 
27 West.Co. 223 Zuliskey v. Pru- 
dential Ins. Co. of America, Com. 
PL, 27 West.Co. 173 Bittner v. 
Greensboro Gfcas Co., Com.PL, 27 
West. Co. 129 Shaffer v. Johnston, 
Com.PL, 23 West.Co. 67 Richey v. 
York County Nat. Bank, Com.PL, 
53 York Leg.Rec. 145, affirmed 15 
A.2d 737, 142 Pa.Super. 236. 

S.C. Cooper & Griffin v. Bridwell, 
181 -S.E. 56, 177 S.C. 219. 

Tex. Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W.2d 
207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on oth- 
er grounds 172 S.W.2d 89, 141 Tex. 
253 Dallas County v. Miller, 166 
S.W.2d 922, 140 Tex. 242 Rodri- 
guez v. ' Higginbotham-Bailey-Lo- 
gan Co., 160 S.W.2d 234, 138 Tex. 
476 Le Master v. Fort Worth 
Transit Co., 160 S.W.2d 224, 138 
Tex. 512 Dickson v. Kilgore State 
Bank, Com.App., 257 S.W. 867 
Barrick v. Gillette, Civ.App., 187 
S.W.2d 683 Texas Prudential Ins. 
Co. v. Kaighten, Civ.App., 186 S. 
W.2d 843 Ward v. Strickland, Civ. 
App., 177 S.W.2d 79, error refused 
Shield Co. v. Cartwright, Civ, 

162 



App., 172 S.W.2d 108, affirmed 177 
S.W.2d 954, 142 Tex. 324 Warren 
v. Schawe, Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 
415, error refused Happ v. Happ, 
Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 227, error re- 
fused Curington v. Parks, Civ. 
App., 158 S.W.2d 839 Elkins v, 
Super-Cold 'Southwest Co., Civ. 
App., 157 S.W.2d 946, reversed on 
other grounds Super-Cold South- 
west Co. v. Elkins, 166 S.W.2d 97, 
140 Tex. 48 Carrell v. Dallas 
Railway & Terminal Co., Civ.App., 
151 S.W.2d 869, error dismissed, 
judgment correct Walker v. Tex- 
as & N. O. R. Co., Civ.App., 150 
S.W.2d 853, error dismissed, judg- 
ment correct Citizens State Bank 
of Houston v. Giles, Civ.App., 145 
S.W.2d 899, error dismissed 
Marlett v. Brownfleld, Civ.App., 
145 S.W.2d 636 Heath v. Elliston, 
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 243, error 
dismissed, judgment correct Jus- 
tiss v. Naqiuin, Civ.App., 137 S.W. 
2d 72, error dismissed, judgment 
correct Dutton v. Kinsey, Civ. 
App., 124 S.W.2d 446 Whiteman 
v. Harris, Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 
699, error refused McCray Re- 
frigerator Sales Corporation v. 
Johnson, Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 410, 
error dismissed Thompson v. 
Jones, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 778 
Arnim v. Rauch, Civ.App., 113 
S.W.2d 699, reversed by agreement 
Clark v. Price, Civ.App., 112 S. 
W.2d 256, error dismissed Draper 
v. Presley, Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d 
1124, error dismissed Robinson v. 
Fort Worth Hospitals Holding 
Corporation, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 
1077, error dismissed Johnson v. 
Moody, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 583, 
error dismissed McClendon v. 
Southwestern Life Ins. Co., Civ. 
App., 98 S.W.2d 866 Mitchell v. 
Heard, Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 832 
Duvall v. Kansas City Life Ins. 
Co., Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 793, modi- 
fied on other grounds and rehear- 
ing denied 104 S.W.2d 10, affirmed 
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Duv- 
all, 104 S.W.2d 11, 129 Tex. 287 
J. S. Curtiss & Co. v. White, Civ. 
App., 90 S.W.2d 1095. Error dis- 
missed by agreement Joiner v. 
Joiner, Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 903, re- 
versed on other grounds 112 S.W. 
2d 1019, 131 Tex. 27 Amarillo 
Transfer & Storage Co. v. De 
Shong, Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 381- 
St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lit- 
tle, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 122 New- 
ton v. McCarrick, Civ.App., 75 S. 
W.2d 472, error dismissed Free- 
man v. Schwenker, Civ.App., 73 S. 
W.2d 609 Guinn v. Coates, Civ. 
App., 67 S.W.2d 621 White Sew- 
ing Mach. Co. v. Armstrong, Civ. 
App., 30 S.W.2d 362, error dis- 
missed Schwabe v. Kemp & Cold- 
well, Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 273, error 
refused Jopling v. Caldwell-De- 
genhardt, Civ.App., 292 S.W. 958, 
reversed on other grounds Benton 



49 C. J. S. JUDGMENTS 60 

plies where there is a conflict in the evidence, 26 j even though the conflict is such that the trial court 



Land Co. v. Jopling, Com.App., 300 
S.W. 28 Lee v. Lewis, Civ.App., 
287 S.W. 115, affirmed, Com.App., 
298 S.W. 408. 

Vt. Collins v. Fogg, 8 A.2d 684, 110 
Vt 465 Northeastern Nash Auto- 
mobile Co. v. Bartlett, 136 A. 697, 
100 Vt. 246. 

Va. -standard Dredging Co. v. Bar- 
nalla, 163 S.E. 367, 158 Va. 367. 
Wash. Carlson v, Wolski, 147 P.2d 
291, 20 Wash.2d 323 Ballard v. 
Yellow Cab Co., 14-5 P.2d 1019, 20 
Wash.2d 67 Flyzik v. Travelers 
Ins. Co., 145 P.2d 539, 20 Wash.2d 
35 Codd v. Westchester Fire Ins. 
Co., 128 P.2d 968, 14 Wash.2d 600, 
151 A.L.R. 316 Briggs v. United 
Fruit & Produce, 119 P.2d 687, 11 
Wash.2d 466 Griffin v. Cascade 
Theatres Corporation, 117 P.2d 651, 
10 Wash.2d 574 Moen v. Chest- 
nut, 113 P.2d 1030, 9 Wash.2d 93 
Corbaley v. Pierce County, 74 P. 
2d 993, 192 Wash. 688 De Nune 
v. Tibbitts, 73 P.2d 521, 192 Wash. 
279 Caylor v. B. C. Motor 
Transp., 71 P.2d 162, 191 Wash. 
365 Young v. Smith, 7 P.2d 1, 
166 Wash. 411 Beglinger v. 
Shields, 2 P.2d 681, 164 Wash. 147 
Fleming v. Buerkli, 293 P. 462, 
159 Wash. 460 Collins v. Barmon, 
260 P. 245, 145 Wash. .383 Ton- 
Icon v. Small, 255 P. 1033, 143 
Wash. 665 Wimmer v. Parsons, 
251 P. 868, 141 Wash. 422 Lian 
v. Huglen, 251 P. 585, 141 Wash. 
369 Stickney v. Congdon, 250 P. 
32, 140 Wash. 670 Blouen v. 
Quimpere Canning Co., 247 P. 940, 
139 Wash. 436 Bridgeport State 
Bank v. Union Warehouse & Mill- 
ing Co., 242 P. 13, 137 Wash. 190 
Hudson v. Pacific Northwest Trac- 
tion Co., 238 P. 982, 136 Wash. 4 
Heaton v. Smith, 235 P. 958, 134 
Wash. 450, reheard 240 P. 362, 136 
Wash. 695 Lydon v. Exchange 
Nat. Bank, 235 P. 27, 134 Wash. 
188 Hansen v. Sandvik, 222 P. 205, 
128 Wash. 60 Metropolitan Club v. 
Massachusetts Bonding & Insur- 
ance Co., 220 P. 818, 127 Wash. 
320 Rieper v. General Cigar Co., 
209 P. 849, 121 Wash. 427. 
Wis. Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. Russell, 
7 N.W.2d 825, 242 Wis. 247 Per- 
kie v. Carolina Ins. Co., 6 N.W.2d 
195, 241 Wis. 378 Cranston v. 
Railway Express Agency, 297 N. 
W. 418, 237 Wis. 479 Koscuik v. 
Sherf, 272 N.W. 8, 224 Wis. 217 
. Scory v. La Fave, 254 N.W. 643, 
215 Wis. 21 Twist v. Minneapolis, 
St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 190 N. 
W. 449, 178 Wis. 613. 
33 C.J. p 1184 note 49 M. P 1185 

note 56. 
Test 

Respecting sufficiency of evidence, 
test whether evidence supports ver- 
dict or requires granting judgment 



non obstante veredicto does not dif- 
fer perceptibly. Maylink v. Minne- 
haha Co-op. Oil Co., 291 N.W. 572, 
67 S.D. 187 Wolff v. Stenger, 2-39 N. 
W. 181, 59 S.D. 231. 
Verdict representing- sum admitted- 
ly due 

Refusal to enter judgment not- 
withstanding verdict for plaintiff 
was not error where part of amount 
of judgment for plaintiff was admit- 
ted by defendant to represent sum 
admittedly due. Commonwealth 
Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Hachmei- 
ster Lind Co., 181 A. 787, 320 Pa, 
233. 

In, negligence action which was 
tried by judge without a jury, where 
testimony in the record might have 
supported a finding of negligence of 
defendant or a finding that plaintiff 
was contributorily negligent, court 
in bane was without authority to en- 
ter judgment non obstante veredic- 
to in favor of plaintiff. Moore v. W. 
J. Gilmore Drug Co., 200 A. 250, 131 
Pa. Super. 349. 

In California 

(1) The right of the trial court to 
render a judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict is the same as its right 
to grant a nonsuit. In re Green's 
Estate, 154 P.2d 692, 25 Cal.2d 535 
Neel v. Mannings, Inc., 122 P.2d 
576, 19 CaUd 647 In re Arnold's 
Estate, 107 P.2d 25, 16 Cal.2d 573 
-^In re Finkler*s Estate, 46 P.2d 149, 

3 Cal.2d 584 Ferran v. South- 
ern Pac. Co., 44 P.2d 533, 8 Cal.2d 
350 Card v. Boms, 291 P. 190, 210 
CaL 200 McKellar v. Pendergast, 
156 P.2d 950, 68 CaLApp.2d 485 
Megee v. Fasulis, 134 P.2d 815, 57 
Cal.App.2d 275 In re Hettermann's 
Estate, 119 P.2d 788, 48 Cal.App.2d 
363 Van Rennes v. Southern Coun- 
ties Gtes Co. of California, 113 P.2d 
238, 44 Cal.App.2d 880 Funari v. 
Gravem-Inglis Baking Co., 104 P.2d 
44, 40 Cal.App.2d 25 Hubbert v. Az- 
tec Brewing Co., 80 P.2d 185, 26 Cal. 
App.2d 664, followed in Cerezo v. 
Aztec Brewing Co., 80 P.2d 198, 26 
CaLApp.2d 754, and rehearing denied 
Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing Co., 80 P. 
2d 1016, 26 Cal.App.2d 664 Myers v. 
Southern Pac. Co., 58 P.2d 387, 14 
Cal.App.2d 287, hearing denied, Sup., 
59 P.2d 1001 Boysen v. Porter, 52 
P.2d 582, 10 Cal.App.2d 431 Tracey 
v. L. A. Paving Co., 41 P.2d 942, 

4 Cal.App.2d 700 Kerby v. Elk 
Grove Union High School Dist., 36 
P.2d 431, 1 Cal.App.'2d 246 Tomlin- 
son v. Kiramidjian, 24 P.2d 559, 
13-3 Cal.App. 418. 

(2) It may not render such judg- 
ment if there is any substantial evi- 
dence in support of the verdict. 
Brandenburg v. Pacific Gas & Blec. 
Co., 165 P.2d 41, 169 P.2d 909 Rice 
v. California Lutheran Hospital, 163 

163 



P.2d 860 In re Green's Estate, 154 
P.2d 692, 25 Cal.2d 535 Gray v. 
Southern Pac. Co.. 135 P.2d 593, 145 
P.'2d 561, 23 Cal.2d 632 Neel v. Man- 
nings, Inc., 122 P.2d 576, 19 Cal.2d 
647 In re Arnold's Estate, 107 P. 
2d 25, 16 Cal.2d 573 Anderson v. 
I. M. Jameson Corporation, 59 P.2d 
962, 7 Cal.2d 60 Ferran v. South- 
ern Pac. Co., 44 P.2d 533, 8 Cal.2d 
350 Card v. Boms, 291 P. 190, 210 
Cal. 200 McKellar v. Pendergast, 
156 P.2d 950, 68 Cal.App.2d 485 
Lenning v. Chiolo, 147 P.2d 410, 63 
CaLApp.2d oil Sunseri v. Dime 
Taxi Corporation, 135 P.2d 654, 57 
Cal.App.2d 926 Megee v. Fasulis, 
134 P.2d 815, 57 Cal.App.2d 275 
Shannon v. Thomas, 134 P.2d 522, 
57 Cal.App.2d 187 Gardner v. Mar- 
shall, 132 P.2d 833, 56 Cal.App.'2d 
62 Pease v. San Diego Unified 
School Dist., 128 P.2d 621, 54 Cal. 
App.2d 20 Matherne v. Los Feliz 
Theatre, 128 P.2d 59, 53 Cal.App.2d 
660 Turner v. Lischner, 126 P.'2d 
156, 52 Cal.App.2d 273 Silva v. Mar- 
ket St. Ry. Co., 123 P.2d 904, 50 
Cal.App.2d 796 In re Shields' Es- 
tate, 121 P.2d 795, 49 Cal.App.2d 293 
In re Bucher's Estate, 120 P.2d 44, 
48 Cal.App.2d 465 In re Hetter- 
mann's Estate, 119 P.2d 788, 48 Cal. 
App.2d 263 Van Rennes v. South- 
ern Counties Gas Co. of California, 
113 P.2d 238, 44 Cal.App.2d 880 
Funari v. Gravem-Inglis Baking Co., 
104 P.2d 44, 40 Cal.App.'2d 25 Page 
v. Cudahy Packing Co., 87 P.2d 913, 
31 Cal.App.-2d 282 Francesconi v. 
Belluomini, 83 P.2d 298, 28 CaLApp. 
2d 701 Collins v. Nelson, 61 P.2d 
479, 16 Cal.App.2d 535 In re Bar- 
ton's Estate, 60 P.2d 471, 16 CaLApp. 
2d 246, motion denied 67 P.2d 695, 
20 Cal.App.2d 648 Myers v. South- 
ern Pac. Co., 58 P.2d 387, 14 Cal. 
App.2d -287, hearing denied, Sup., 59 
P.2d 1001 Lam Ong v. Pacific Mo- 
tor Trucking Co., 51 P.2d 1112, 10 
Cal.App.2d 3*29 Tracey v. L. A. Pav- 
ing Co., 41 P.2d 942, 4 Cal.App.2d 
700 Kerby v. Elk Grove Union High 
School Dist, 36 P.2d 431, 1 CaLApp. 
2d 246 Crone v. City of El Cajon, 24 
P.2d 846, 133 CaLApp. 624 Tomlin- 
son v. Kiramidjian, 2:4 P.2d 559, 133 
CaLApp. 418 Landers v. Crescent 
Creamery Co., 5 P/2d 934, 118 Cal. 
App. 707 Callahan v. Harm, 277 P. 
529, 98 CaLApp. 56833 C.J. p 143 
note 80 '[b] (3). 

26. U.'S. Shane v. Commercial Cas- 
ualty Ins. Co., D.C.Pa., 48 F.Supp. 
151, affirmed, C.C.A., Shane v. Bar- 
ger, 152 F.2d 544 Boult v. Mary- 
land Casualty Co., aC.A.Miss., Ill 
F.2d 257, certiorari denied Mary- 
land Casualty Co. v. Boult, 61 S. 
Ct 35, 311 U.S. 672, 85 L.Ed. 432. 
Cal. Hunt v. United Bank & Trust 
Co., 291 P. 184, 210 Cal. 108 
Leplat v. Raley Wiles Auto Sales, 



I 60 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



vould be justified in granting a new trial notwith- 
tending it 27 It has been held, however, that to 
leprive the court of the right to exercise the power 
:o grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding 
:he verdict there need not be an absence of con- 
flict, but there must be a substantial conflict in the 
evidence, 28 and that the motion may be granted 
where the evidence is such that it is clearly insuffi- 
cient to support the verdict. 29 

(c) Other Matters 

A Judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not be 
entered where a motion for a directed verdict was prop- 
erly denied, or for a variance or failure of proof which 
may be remedied If a new trial is granted, or where it 
is not clear that the moving party Is entitled to judg- 
ment as a matter of law on the merits, or because the 
verdict is tainted with prejudice or caprice. 

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not 
ordinarily be entered where a motion for a directed 



verdict was properly denied, 80 although such a 
judgment may be granted where a directed verdict 
was properly denied because the grounds therefor 
were not sufficiently stated. 31 Furthermore, it has 
also been held that a motion for such a judgment 
may not be granted after the trial court erroneously 
denied a motion for a peremptory instruction, 32 al- 
though this rule does not apply where the court of 
its own motion entered a peremptory instruction and 
did not overrule a motion for a peremptory instruc- 
tion. 3 ^ A judgment notwithstanding the verdict 
will not be granted for a variance unless it appears 
that an amendment of the complaint cannot prop- 
erly be made, 34 or for a failure of proof, where it 
reasonably appears that the defect in proof can be 
remedied if a new trial is granted, 35 or where it is 
not clear on the whole record that the moving- 
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, on 



145 P.2d 3 ! 50, S2 Cal.App.2d 6-28 
Van Rennes v. Southern Counties 
Gas Co. of California, 113 P.2d 
238, 44 Cal.App.2d 880 In re Bar- 
ton's Estate, 60 P.2d 471, 16 CaL 
App.2d 246, motion denied 67 P.2d 
695, 20 GaLApp.2d 648. 

Colo. De Boer v. Olmsted, 260 P. 
108, 82 Colo. 369. 

D.C. McWilliams v. Shepard, 127 F. 
2d 18, 75 U.S.APP.D.C. 334. 

111. Hirning v. Contracting & Mate- 
rial Co., 38 N.E.2d 793, 312 Ill.ApP. 
655. 

Mich. Malone v. Newhouse, 227 N. 
W. 750, 248 Mich. 516 Freeman v. 
Millen, 205 N.W. 122, 23-2 Mich. 
271, 

Minn. Wright v. Post, 208 N.W. 
538, 167 Minn. 130. 

N.D. Froemke T. Otter Tail Power 
Co., 276 N.W. 146, 68 N.D. 7. 

Ohio. Magyar v. Prudential Ins. 
Co. of America, 15 N.E.2d 144, 133 
Ohio St. 563 Lent v. New York, 
C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 44 N.E.2d 295, 
69 Ohio App. 514 Nobles v. Tole- 
do Edison Co., 36 N.E.2d 995, 67 
Ohio App. 414. 

Pa_jSefton v. Valley Dairy Co., 28 
A.'2d 313, 34'5 Pa. 324 Hostetler 
v. Kniseley, 185 A. 300, 322 Pa. 248 
Johnson v. Staples, 5 A.2d 433, 
135 Pa.'Super. 274 Swartz v. Stein 
& Levy, 78 Pa.Super.Ct 515 Pres- 
ton v. Schroeder, Com.Pl., 27 Del. 
Co. "350 Landis v. Conestoga 

. Trartsp. Co., Com.Pl., 48 Lanc.Rev. 
481, 11 Som. 302, affirmed 36 A.2d 
465, 349 Pa. 97 Kuhn v. Cones- 
toga Transp. Co., Com.Pl., 48 Lane. 
Rev. 491, affirmed Landis v. Cones- 
toga Transp. Co., 36 A.2d 465, 3*49 
Pa. 97 Freas v. Campbell, Com. 
PL, 48 Lanc.Rev. 464 Hershko- 
witz v. Atlantic Refining Co., Com. 
PL, 32 Luz.Leg.Reg. 367 John v. 
Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Com.PL, 92 
Pittsb.Leg.J. 585, affirmed 36 A. 



2d 818, 349 Pa. 159 Smolinsky v. 
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 
Schuyl.Leg.Reg. 276, reversed on 
other grounds 26 A.2d 131, 149 Pa. 
Super. 72. 

Wash. Wilcox v. Hubbard, 282 P. 
218, 15<4 Wash. 344 Duggins v. 
International Motor Transit Co., 
280 P. 50, 153 Wash. 549 Crary v. 
Coffin, 268 P. 881, 148 Wash. 287 
Ticknor v. Seattle-Renton Stage 
Line, 247 P. 1, 139 Wash. 354, 47 
A.L.R. 252. 

27. CaL Hunt v. United Bank & 
Trust Co., 291 P. 184, 210 Cal. 108 
Van Rennes v. Southern Coun- 
ties Gas Co. of California, 113 P. 
2d 238, 44 Cal.App.'2d 880 In re 
Barton's Estate, 60 P.2d 471, 16 
Cal.App.2d 246, motion denied 67 
P.2d 695, 20 Cal.App.2d 648. 

111. Pope v. Illinois Terminal R. 
Co., 67 N.E.2d 284, 329 HLApp. 62. 

28. <Jal. In re Smethurst's Estate, 
59 P.2d 830, 15 Cal. App. 2 d 322. 

29. CaL In re Smethurst's Estate, 
supra, 

30. CaL Locke v. Meline, 48 P.2d 
176, 8 Cal.App.2d 482 Tracey v. 
L. A. Paving Co., 41 P.2d 942, 4 
Cal.App.2d 700. 

Md. Alexander v. Tingle, 30 A.2d 
737, 181 Md. 464. 

Minn. Farm Mortgage & Loan Co. 
v. Pederson, 205 N.W. 286, 164 
Minn. 425 O'Halloran v. Chicago, 
B. & Q. R. Co'., 195 N.W. 144, 156 
Minn. 471. 

N.D. Ennis v. Retail Merchants' 
Ass'n Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 156 N. 
W. 234, 33 N.D. 20. 

S.C. Bohumir Kryl Symphony Band 
v. Allen University, 12 S.E.2d 712, 
196 S.C, 175. 

Tex. Barrett v. Commercial Stand- 
ard Ins, Co., Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 
815. 

164 



31. CaL In re Fleming's Estate. 
2*51 P. 637, 199 Cal. 750. 

32. Ky. Roe v. Gentry's Ex's, 162 
S.W.2d 208, 290 Ky. 598 Franklin 
Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. 
Cook's Adm'r, 287 S.W. 553, 21C 
Ky. 15 Baskett v. Coombs' Adm'r, 
247 S.W. 1118, 198 Ky. 17. 

33 C.J. p 1184 note 50 [a] (4). 

33. Ky. Weikel v. Alt, 27 S.W.2<I 
684, 234 Ky. 91. 

34. Ky. Old 76 Distillery Co. v. 
Morris, 28 $.W.2d 474, 234 Ky. 389. 

Pa. American Products Co. of 
Pennsylvania v. Franklin Quality 
Refining Co., 119 A, 414. 275 Pa. 
33'2. 

33 C.J. p 1185 note 54. 
Manner of raising question 

Fact that defendant made a mo- 
tion for nonsuit and later a motion 
for binding instructions, where nei- 
ther contained any reference to va- 
riance, did not entitle defendant to 
raise question of variance for first 
time on motion for judgment non 
obstante veredicto, since such ques- 
tion must be specifically raised, ei- 
ther when evidence is offered, when 
motion for nonsuit is made, or point 
for binding instruction submitted. 
Sipior v. U. S. .Glass Co., 200 A- 93S, 
132 Pa.'Super. 208. 
Variance held not fatal 
Ky. Old 76 Distillery Co. v. Mor- 
ris, 28 S.W.2d 474, 234 Ky. 389. 
36. Minn. Kundiger v. Prudential 
Ins. Co. of America, 17 N.W.2d 49, 
219 Minn. 25 Anderson v. New- 
some, 258 N.W. 157, 193 Minn. 157 
Knight Soda Fountain Co. v. 
Dirnberger, 256 N.W. 657, 192 
Minn. 387 Dreelan v. Karon, 254 
N.W. 433, 191 Minn. 330 First 
Nat Bank v. Fox, 254 N.W. 8, 191 
Minn. 318 Drake v. Connolly, 235 
N.W. 614, 183 Minn. 89 Manning 
y. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



the merits, 86 or where any other reason exists pre- 
cluding a binding direction. 37 The moving party 
is not required to offer evidence in order to com- 
plain, by motion for judgment non obstante vere- 
dicto, of the sufficiency of the evidence to support 
the verdict. 38 The fact that a verdict is tainted 
with prejudice or caprice does not authorize a trial 
court to substitute its fact findings for the tainted 
jury verdict and render judgment accordingly. 89 

(3) Scope of Inquiry in General 
On a motion based on the evidence for judgment 



notwithstanding the verdict, the only question presented 
Is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to Justify 
the verdict on any theory, and the scope of Inquiry does 
not reach other matters. 

Where the trial court in passing on a motion for 
judgment notwithstanding the verdict may consider 
the evidence, the scope of inquiry on such a motion 
does not reach a defect in the pleadings, 40 or the 
court's rulings on the admission and rejection of 
evidence, 41 or the manner and form in which issues 



229 N.W. 566, 179 Minn. 411 Gar- 
bisch v. American By. Express Co., 
225 N.W. 432. 177 Minn. 494 
Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty Co., 
212 N.W. 595, 170 Minn. 326 
Schendel v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
Ry. Co., 210 N.W. 70, 168 Minn. 
152 Herman v. Wabash Ry. Co., 
189 N.W. 934, 153 Minn. 195. 

JJ.D. Nelson v. Scherling, 300 N.W. 
803. 71 N^D. 337 Olstad v. Stock- 
growers Credit Corporation, 266 N. 
W. 109, 66 N.D. 416 Donahue v. 
Boynton, 242 N.W. 530, 62 N.D. 
182. 

S.D. Froke v. Watertown Gas Co., 
1 N.W.2d 590, 68 S.D. 266. 

Wyo. Caldwell v. Roach, 12 P.2d 
376. 44 Wyo. 319. 

33 C.J. P 1185 note 55. 

Rule recognized and held inapplica- 
ble to particular case 

Minn. Clough v. Chicago, M. & St 
P. Ry. Co., 191 N.W. 923, 154 
Minn. 515. 

36. Cal. Tracey v. L. A. Paving 
Co.. 41 P.2d 942, 4 Cal.App.2d 700. 

Ky. Pope v. Upton, 186 S.W.*2d 900, 
299 Ky. 690. 

Minn. Manning v. Chicago Great 
Western R. Co., 229 N.W. 566, 
179 Minn. 411 Neumann v. Inter- 
state Power Co., 228 N.W. 342, 179 
Minn. 46 Arcadia Park Ass'n v. 
Anderson, 225 N.W. 441, 177 Minn. 
487 Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty 
Co.,- 212 N.W. 595, 170 Minn. 326. 

N.D. Sax Motor Co. v. Mann, 10 N. 
W.2d 242, 72 N.D. 595 Armstrong 
v. McDonald, 4 N.W.2d 191, 72 N. 
D. 28 Sax Motor Co. v. Mann, 
299 N.W. 691, 71 N.D. 221 Olstad 
v. Stockgrowers Credit Corpora- 
tion. 266 N.W. 109, 66 N.D. 416 
Donahue v. Boynton, 242 N.W. 530, 
62 N.D. 182 First Sec. Bank v. 
Bagley Elevator Co., 2-37 N.W. 648, 
212 N.D. 227 Sheffield v. Stone- 
Ordean-Wells Co., 190 N.W. 315, 
49 N.D. 142. 

Or. Bach v. Chezem, 124 P.2d 710, 
168 Or. 535. 

Pa. Devling Bros. v. Horn, 188 A. 
347, 324 Pa. 481 Roberts v. Wash- 
ington Trust Co., 170 A. 291, 313 
Pa. 584, certiorari denied 54 S. 
Ct. 778, 292 U.S. 608, 78 LJSd. 
1469, and rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 



857, '292 U.S. 613, 78 L.Ed. 14T2 
Mitchell v. City of New Castle, 
119 A. 485, 2T5 Pa, 426 Meehan 
v. Shreveport-Eldorado Pipe Line 
Co., 164 A. 364, 107 Pa.Super. 580 
McDonald v. Eiler, 81 Pa.Super. 
172 Del Vecchio v. Greco, 80 Pa. 
Super. 423 iShatz v. American Ry. 
Express Co., 80 Pa.'Super. 335 
Kline v. Moyer. Com.Pl., 32 Berks 
Co. 100 Webb v. Hess, Com.Pl., 
46 Dauph.0o. 84 Bowhall v. Wool- 
eyhan Transport Co., Com.Pl., 29 
DeLCo. 314 Arnold v. Tokheim, 
Com.Pl., 21 Erie Co. 146 Palmer 
v. City of Erie, Com.Pl., 20 Erie 
Co. 400, affirmed 9 A.2d 378, 337 
Pa. 5 Supervisors of Manheim 
Tp. v. Workman, Com.Pl., 48 Lane. 
Rev. 362, affirmed Supervisors of 
Manheim Tp., Lancaster County v. 
Workman, 35 A.2d 283, 154 Pa. 
Super. 146 Peoples Sav. & Trust 
Co. v. Nescopeck M. F. I. Co., Com. 
PL, 38 Luz.Leg.Reg. 139 Edwards 
v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., Com. 
PI., 3'7 Luz.Leg.Reg. 257 Miners 
Sav. Bank, Pittston v. Pace, Com. 
PI., 37 Luz.Leg.Reg. 241 Scranton 
Electric Co. v. School Dist of 
Avoca, Com.Pl., 37 Luz.Leg.Reg. 
179, affirmed 37 A.2d 725, 155 Pa. 
Super. 270 Rinkievich v. Sover- 
eign Camp, W. O. W., Com.PL, 84 
Luz.Leg.Reg. 387 Diehl v. Central 
Printing Co., Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg. 
Reg. 430 Sell v. Pahs, Com.PL, 
58 Montg.Co. 372 Zurawski v. Tp. 
of Upper Merlon, Com.Pl., 54 
Montg.Co. 396 Seier v. Brunner, 
Com.PL, 28 NorthXJo. 81 Skinner 
v. Koehler, Com.Pl. f 9-3 Pittsb.Leg. 
J. 347 Lane v. Samuels, Com.Pl., 
92 Pittsb.Leg.J. 494, affirmed 39 
A.2d 626, 350 Pa. 446 Sells v. City 
of Pittsburgh, Com.PL, 91 Pittsb. 
Leg.J. 479 Perrus v. Cudahy 
Packing Co., Com^PL, 90 Pittsb. 
Leg.J. 59*5 Samber v. Hahn, Com. 
PL, 90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 465 Arrow 
Press Corporation v. Allegheny 
County, Com.Pl., 90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 
37 Cashok v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 579 
Rebel v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. 
Co., Com.Pl., 89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 17, 
affirmed 16 A,2d 534, 340 Pa. 313 
McBride v. Ault, Com.Pl., 88 

165 



Pittsb.Leg.J. 439 Barna v. United 
Russian Orthodox Brotherhood, 
Co., 88 Pittsb.Leg.J. 245 Automo- 
bile Finance Co. v. Anderson, Com. 
PL, 27 WestCo. 227 Shaw v. Ma- 
lone, Com.PL, 55 York Leg.Rec. 
150 Zinn v. Bentz, Com.Pl., 55 
Tork Leg.Rec. 149 Wlldwood 
Strand Realty Co. v. Skipper, Com. 
PL, '54 York Leg.Rec. 131. 

S.D. Mills v. Armstrong, 13 N.W. 
2d 726. 

Tex. Graves v. Hartford Accident & 
Indemnity Co., Iffl S.W.2d 464, 138 
Tex. 589 Ward v. Strickland, Civ. 
App., 177 S.W.2d 79, error refused 
Happ v. Happ, Civ.App., 160 S. 
W.2d 227, error refused Corona 
Petroleum Co. v. Jameson, Civ. 
App., 146 S.W.2d 512, error dis- 
missed, Judgment correct Kaiser 
v. Newsom, Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 
755, error dismissed Amarillo 
Transfer & Storage Co. v. De 
Shong, Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 381. 

33 C.J. p 1180 note 57. 

37. p a . Hostetler v. Knlseley, 185 
A. 500, 322 Pa. 248 Johnson v. 
Staples, 5 A.2d 433, 135 Pa.Super. 
274. 

38. Tex. Universal Life & Acci- 
dent Ins. Co. v. Beaty, Civ.App., 
177 S.W.2d 244. 

39. Tex. Happ v. Happ, Civ.App., 
160 S.W.2d 227, error refused. 

40. Idaho. Helgeson v. Powell, 34 
P.2d 957, 54 Idaho 667. 

111. Farmer v. Alton Building & 
Loan Ass'n, 13 N.E.2d 652. 294 111. 
App. 206. 

Tex. Shaw v. Porter, Civ.App., 190 
'S.W.2d 396. 

41. 111. Farmer v. Alton Building 
& Loan Ass'n, 18 N.E.2d 652, 394 
IlLApp. 206. 

Mich. Finch v. W. R. Roach Co., 
295 N.W. 324, 295 Mich. 589. 

Pa. Magaro v. Metropolitan Edison 
Co., 197 A. 550. 130 Pa.Super. 323 
Ozanich v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 180 A. 67, 119 Pa.Super. 
52, reargument refused and sup- 
plemented 180 A. 576, 119 Pa.Su- 
per. 5-2 Koller v. Benecassa, 14 
Po.Dist & Co. 474, 22 Berks Co. 
299 Stepanavage v. Gibbs, Com. 
PL, 36 Berks Co. 233, 58 York Leg. 



60 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



r ere submitted, 42 or the question whether plain- 
iffs were persons authorized to bring the suit, 43 
T questions not raised at the trial, 44 the only ques- 
ion presented being whether or not the evidence 
s sufficient to justify the verdict on any theory. 45 
V. motion for judgment notwithstanding the ver- 
lict has been held, in effect, to review the court's 
Tiling in denying a motion for a directed verdict. 46 
Jnder some statutes it has been held that the mo- 
ion must be based on pleadings and evidence, 47 
ind not on arguments made by counsel to the jury. 48 
The court does not determine questions of -fact 
based on disputed evidence; 49 it merely reviews 
the whole case on the record and does subsequently 
what it would have been proper to do under a re- 
quest for a binding direction. 50 

(4) Consideration of Evidence in Passing on 

Motion 
Where, In passing on a motion for Judgment not- 



withstanding the verdict, the trial court may consider 
the evidence, it may not weigh ail the evidence of both 
sides or judge of the credibility of the witnesses, but 
must give to the successful party at the trial the bene- 
fit of every favorable fact and inference fairly deducible 
from the testimony, and accept the evidence tending to 
support the verdict as true. 

Where, in passing on a motion for judgment not- 
withstanding the verdict, the court may consider 
the evidence, it is required to be governed by the 
rules which govern it in passing on a motion for a 
directed verdict; 51 such motions have the same ef- 
fect, 52 and the power of the court is the same in 
both cases. 53 These motions present only a ques- 
tion of law as to whether or not, when all of the 
evidence is considered, together with all reasonable 
inferences from it in its aspect most favorable to 
the party against whom the motion is directed, there 
is a total failure or lack of evidence to prove any 
necessary element of his case ; 54 and all reasonable 



Rec. 95 Smyth v. Bluestone, Co., 

88 Pittsb.Leg.J. 597. 
Tex. Shaw v. Porter, Civ.App., 190 

S.W.2d -396. 
33 C.J. p 1183 note 47 [b]. 

Error in permitting- plaintiff to re- 
fresh his memory from records made 
by his employees before testifying 
was held not ground for judgment 
for defendant notwithstanding ver- 
dict for plaintiff. Gordon v. Bliz- 
ard, 163 A. 43, 106 Pa.Super. 112. 

42. Tex. Griffay v. Bobbins, Civ. 
App., 91 S.W.2d 1160, error dis- 
missed. 

43. Tex. Chalmers v. Gumm, 154 
S.W.2d 640, 137 Tex. 467. 

44. Pa. Bowhall v. Wooleyhan 
Transport Co., Com.Pl. t 29 Del.Co. 
-314 Renfro v. Smith, 52 York 45, 
affirmed 7 A.2d 7, 135 Pa.Super. 
S78. 

Defense of laches and waiver 
could not be raised for first time in 
defendants' motion for Judgment 
non obstante veredicto. Mesh v. 
Citrin, 300 N.W. 870, 299 Mich. 527. 
Ultra vires contract 

Claim made for first time on mo- 
tion for judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict that alleged contract was 
ultra vires was held not entitled to 
be considered. Yakiraa. Fruit Grow- 
ers' Ass'n v. Hall, 40 P.2d 123, 180 
Wash. 365. 

45. Minn. Fink v. Northern Pac. 
Ry. Co., 203 N.W. 47, 162 Minn. 
365. 

Particular questions raised 

<1) Where seller's action against 
corporation for purchase price of 
goods allegedly bought by corpora- 
tion's agent without authority was 
submitted to the jury solely on Ques- 
tion of ratification, corporation's mo- 
tion for judgment notwithstanding! 



verdict for seller raised the ques- 
tions both of ratification and of es- 
toppel. Cudahy Bros. Co. v. West 
Michigan Dock & Market Corpora- 
tion, 280 N.W. 93, 285 Mich. 18. 

(2) Where violation of statute 
respecting automobile lights was in- 
volved, but no calendars were of- 
fered in evidence, court, on motion 
for judgment non obstante vere- 
dicto, could, in Its discretion, permit 
question whether or not accident oc- 
curred within hour after sunset to 
be raised.-^-Kovalchik v. Demo, 94 
Pa/Super. 167. 

46. N.D. Bormann v. Beckman, 19 
N.W.2d 455, 73 N.D. 720 Olson v. 
Ottertail Power Co., 256 N.W. 246, 
65 N.D. 46, 95 A.L.R. 418 Ennis v. 
Retail Merchants' Ass'n Mut Fire 
Ins. Co., 156 N.W. 234, 33 N.D. 20. 

47. Pa. Brown v. George, 25 A.2d 
691, 344 Pa. 399. 

48. Pa. Brown v. George, supra. 

49. Pa. Hostetler v. Kniseley, 185 
A. 300, 322 Pa. 248. 

BO. Pa. Hostetler v. Kniseley, su- 
pra. 

51. OIL Neering v. Illinois Cent. R. 
Co., 50 N.E.2d 497, 383 111. 366, 
mandate conformed to 53 N.B.2d 
271, 321 IlLApp. 625 Merlo v. 
Public Service Co. of Northern Il- 
linois, 45 N.B.2d 66-5, 381 111. 300, 
followed in 45 N.E.2d 677, 381 111. 
336 In re Klockowski's Estate, 58 
N.E.2d 250, 324 IlLApp. 523 Berg 
v. New York Cent. R. Co., 55 N. 
E.2d -394, 323 IlLApp. 221, affirmed 
62 N.E.2d 676, 391 111. 52 Kre- 
ger v. George W. Diener Mfg. Co., 
53 N.E.2d 26, 321 IlLApp. 302 
Periolet v. City Nat. Bank & Trust 
Co. of Chicago, 53 N.E.2d 22, 321 
IlLApp. 303 Carrell v. New York 
Cent. R. Co., 47 N.E.2d 130, 317 j 

166 



IlLApp. 481, affirmed 52 N.E.2d 
201, 384 111.. 599 Sturgeon v. 
Quarton, 44 N.E.2d 766, 316 111. 
App. 308 Kaznowski v. City of 
La Salle, 43 N.E.2d 852, 316 111. 
App. 115 Baker v. Granite City, 
37 N.E.2d -372, 311 IlLApp. 586 
Geiselman v. Strubhar, 23 N.E.2d 
383. 302 IlLApp. 23 Scherb v. 
Randolph Wells Auto Park, 22 N. 
E.2d 796, 301 IlLApp. 298 Le 
Menager v. Northwestern Steel & 
Wire Co., 22 N.E.2d 710, 301 111. 
App. 260 Oliver v. Kelley, 21 N.E. 
2d 649, 300 IlLApp. 487 Boyda 
Dairy Co. v. Continental Casualty 
Co., 20 N.E.2d 339, 299 IlLApp. 469 
Wells v. Wise, 18 N.E.2d 750, 
298 IlLApp. 252 Emge v. Illinois 
Cent. R. Co., 17 N.E.2d 612, 297 
IlLApp. 344 Farmer v. Alton 
Building & Loan Ass'n, 13 N.E.2d 
652, 294 IlLApp. 206 Gardiner v. 
Richardson, 11 N.E.2d m, 293 
IlLApp. 40 Illinois Tuberculosis 
Ass'n v. Springfield Marine Bank, 
282 IlLApp. 14. 

52. 111. Tidholm v. Tidholm, 62 N. 
E.2d 473, 391 111. 19 Weinstein v. 
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 60 N. 
E.2d 207, 389 111. 571 Hunt v. 
Vermilion County Children's 
Home, 44 N.B.2d 609, 381 111. 29 
Christensen v. Frankland, 58 N.E. 
2d 289, 324 IlLApp. 391 Larimore 
v. Larimore, '20 N.E.2d 902, 299 111. 
App. 547. 

Ohio. J. & F. Harig Co. v. City of 
Cincinnati, 22 N.E.2d 540, 61 Ohio 
App. 314. 

53. 111. Merlo v. Public Service Co. 
of Northern Illinois, 45 N.E.2d 66'5, 
381 111. 300, followed in 45 N.E. 
2d 677, 381 111. 336. 

54. 111. Berg v. New York Cent. R. 
Co., 62 N.E.2d 676, 391 111. 52 
Weinstein v. Metropolitan Life 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



doubts must be resolved in favor of the verdict. 55 
Thus, in passing on the motion, the trial court may 
not weigh all the evidence of both sides or judge 
,of the credibility of the witnesses, as it may do on 
a motion for a new trial, but must give to the suc- 



cessful party at the trial the benefit of every fa- 
vorable fact and inference fairly deducible from 
the testimony, and accept the evidence tending to 
support the verdict as true, 56 unless on the face of 



Ins. Co., 60 N.E.2d 207, 389 111. i 
571 Millikin Nat Bank of Deca- 
tur v. Shellatoarger Grain Prod- 
ucts Co., 58 N.B.2d 892, -389 111. 
196, conformed to 61 N.B.2d 589, 

326 IlLApp. 72 Todd v. S. S. 
Kresge Co., 52 N.B.2d 206, 384 
111. 524 Neeringf v. Illinois Cent. 
R. Co., 50 N.B.2d 497, -383 111. 366, 
mandate conformed to 53 N.B.2d 
271, 321 IlLApp. 625 Knudson v. 
Knudson, 46 N.E.2d 1011, 382 111. 
492 Merlo v. Public Service Co. 
of Northern Illinois, 45 N.E.2d 665, 
381 111. 300, followed in 4'5 N.E.2d 
C77, 381 111. 336 Walaite v. Chica- 
go, R. & P. Ry. Co., 33 N.B.2d 119, 
376 111. 59 Froehler v. North 
American Life Ins. Co. of Chicago, 
27 N.E.2d 833, 374 111. 17 Car- 
rell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 52 
N.E,2d 201, 3-48 111. 599 Anderson 
v. Krancic, 66 N.E.2d 316, 328 111. 
App. 364 Yordy v. Farmers Auto. 
Ins. Ass'n, 65 N.E.2d 619, 328 111. 
App. 312 De Leuw, Gather & Co. 
v. City of Joliet, 64 N.E.2d 779, 

327 IlLApp. 4'53 Huffman v. 
Gould, 64 N.B.'2d 773, 327 IlLApp. 
428 Dickinson v. Rockford Van 
Orman Hotel Co., 63 N.E.2d 257, 
326 IlLApp. 686 Hedden v. Farm- 
ers Mut. Re-Ins. Co. of Chicago, 
111., 60 N.E.2d 110, 325 IlLApp. 335 
Wilkerson v. Cummings, 58 N. 
E.2d 280, 324 IlLApp. -331 In re 
Klockowski's Estate, 58 N.B.2d 
250, 324 IlLApp. 523 Ebert v. City 
of Chicago, 58 NJE.Sd 198, 324 X1L 
App. 815 Belcher v. Citizens 
Coach Co., 57 N.E.2d 659, 32'4 I1L 
App. 226 Van Hoorebecke v. Iowa 
Illinois Gas & Electric Co., 57 N. 
E.2d 652, 324 IlLApp. 88 Hauck v, 
First Nat. Bank of Highland Park, 
55 N.E.2d 565, 323 IlLApp. 300 
Paolinelli v. Dainty Foods Manu- 
facturers, 54 N.E.2d 759, 322 I1L 
App. 586 Fitch v. Thomson, 54 N. 
E.2d 6'23, 322 IlLApp. 703 Bone v, 
Publix Great States Theatres, 54 
N.E.2d 98, 322 IlLApp. 178 GUI v. 
Lewin, 53 N.E.2d -336, 321 IlLApp. 
633 Gomez v. Rosenblatt, 53 N. 
E.2d 279, 321 IlLApp. 631 Leif v. 
Fleming, 52 N.E.2d 606, 321 I1L 
App. 297 Collins v. City of Chica- 
go, 6'2 N.E.2d 473, 321 IlLApp. 73 
Kouba v. City of Chicago, 51 N.E. 
2d 617, 320 IlLApp. 435 Best v, 
Mid-West Const Corporation, 50 
N.E.2d 867, 320 IlLApp. 341 
Campbell v. Goldblatt Bros., 49 N. 

% E.2d 817, 820 IlLApp. 138 Hansen 
v. Henrici's Inc., 49 N.E.2d 737, 319 
IlLApp. 458 Egner v. Fruit Belt 
Service Co., 47 N.E.2d 486, 318 111. 
App. 87 Schwickrath v. Lowden, 



46 N.E.2d 162, 317 IlLApp. 431 
Zwierzycki v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 4'5 N.E.2d 76, 316 IlLApp. 
345 Gordon v. Peters, 39 N.E.2d 
680, 313 IlLApp. 261 Crump v. 
Montgomery Ward & Co., 39 X.E. 
2d 411, 313 IlLApp. 151 Morris v. 
Silver, 38 N.E.2d 840, 312 IlLApp. 
472 Baker v. Granite City, 37 N. 
E.2d 372, 311 IlLApp. 5S6 Reed v. 
Lyford, 36 N.E.2d 610, 311 IlLApp. 
486 Brumit v. Wasson, 33 N.E.2d 
740, 310 IlLApp. 264 Herb v. Pit- 
cairn, 29 N.E.2d 543, 306 IlLApp. 
583, reversed on other grounds 36 
N.E.2d 555, 377 111. 405 Russell v. 
Richardson, 24 N.E.2d 185, 302 111. 
App. 589 Scherb v. Randolph 
Wells Auto Park, 22 N.E.2d 796, 
801 IlLApp. 298 Larimore v. Lar- 
imore, 20 N.E.2d 902, 299 IlLApp. 
547 Wells v. Wise, 18 N.E.2d 750, 
298 IlLApp. 252 Malewski v. 
Mackiewich, 282 IlLApp. 593. 

55. Minn. Solberg v. Minneapolis 
St. Ry. Co., 7 N.W.2d 926, 214 
Minn. 274. 

56. U.S. Palmer v. Moren, D.C.Pa., 
44 F.Supp. 704. 

CaL Brandenburg v. Pacific Gas & 
Elec. Co., 169 P.2d 909 In re 
Green's Estate, 154 P.2d 692, 25 
Cal.2d .535 Neel v. Mannings, Inc., 
122 P.2d 576, 19 Cal.2d 647 Fer- 
ran v. Southern Pac. Co., 44 P.2d 
533, 3 Cal.2d 350 McKellar v. 
Pendergast, 156 P.2d 950, 68 CaL 
App.2d 485 Shannon v. Thomas, 
13>4 P.2d 522, -57 Cal.App.2d 187 
Gardner v. Marshall, 132 P.2d 833, 
56 Cal.App.2d 62 Pease v. San 
Diego Unified School Dist., 128 P. 
2d 621, 54 Cal.App.2d 20 Math- 
erne v. Los Feliz Theatre, 128 P.2d 
59, 53 Cal.App.2d 660 Turner 
Lischner, 126 P.2d 156, 52 CaLApp. 
2d 273 In re Bucher's Estate,' 120 
P.2d 44, 48 CaLApp.2d 465 In re 
Hettermann's Estate, 119 P.2d 788, 
48 CaLApp.2d 263 Van Rennes v. 
Southern Counties Gas Co. of Cal- 
ifornia, 113 P.2d 238, 44 CaLApp. 
2d 880 Bage v. Cudahy Packing 
Co., 87 P.2d 913, 31 CaLApp.2d 282 
In re Barton's Estate, 60 P.2d 
4T1, 16 Cal.App.2d 246, motion de- 
nied 67 P.2d 695, 20 Cal.App.2d 648 
In re Smethurst's Estate, 59 P. 
2d 830, 15 CaLApP.2d 322 Myers 
v. -Southern Pac. Co., 58 P.2d 387, 
14 Cal.App.2d 287, hearing denied 
Sup., 59 P.2d 1001 Lam Ong v 
Pacific Motor Trucking Co., 51 P 
2d '1112, 10 Cal.App.2d 329 Smyth 
.v. Harris & Devine, 38 P.2d 862, 3 
CaLApp.2d 194 Kerby v. Elk 

167 



Grove Union High School Dist. r S6 
P.2d 431, 1 CaLApp.2d 2*46. 

Idaho. Carson v. Talbot, 129 P.2d 
901, 64 Idaho 198 Stearns v. 
Graves. Ill P.2d 882, 62 Idaho 312 
Hobbs v. Union Pac. R. Co., 108 
P.2d 841, 62 Idaho 58 Manion v. 
Waybright, 86 P.2d 181, 59 Idaho 
643 Hendrix v. City of Twin 
Falls, 29 P.2d 352, 54 Idaho 130. 

HI. Osborn v. Leuffgen, 45 N.E.2d 
622, 381 111. 295 Pope v. Illinois 
Terminal R. Co., 67 N.E.2d 284, 
329 IlLApp. 62 Berg v. New York 
Cent. R. Co., 55 N.E.2d 394, 323 
IlLApp. 221, affirmed 62 N.E.2d 
676, 391 111. 52 Collins v. City of 
Chicago, 52 N.E.2d 473, 321 HI. 
App. 73 Gill v. Lewin, 53 N.E.2d 

336, 321 IlLApp. 633 Guess v. 
New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N.E.2d 
652, 319 IlLApp. 522 Jacobsen v. 
Cummings, 48 N.E.2d 603, 318 111. 
App. 464 Freeman v. Leader Mer- 
cantile Co., 40 NJE.2d 5 1 48, 313 111. 
App. 652 Baker v. Granite City, 
37 N.E.2d 372, 311 IlLApp. 586 
Gnat v. Richardson, 35 N.E.2d 409. 
311 IlLApp. 242, affirmed 39 N.E.2d 

337, 378 111. 626 Partridge v. En- 
terprise Transfer Co., 30 N.E.2d 
947, 307 IlLApp. 386 Goodrich v. 
Sprague, 26 N.E.2d 884, 304 111. 
App. 556, reversed on other 
grounds Sprague v. Goodrich, 32 
N.E.2d 897, 376 111. 80 Cooper v. 
Safeway Lines, 26 N.E.2d 632, 304 
IlLApp. 302 Geiselman v. Strub- 
har, 23 N.E.2d 383, 302 IlLApp. 23 
Le Menager v. Northwestern 
Steel & Wire Co., 22 N.E.2d 710, 
301 IlLApp. 260 Ruzgis v. Rich- 
ardson, 14 N.E.2d 968, 295 IlLApp. 
376 Gardiner v. Richardson, 11 N. 
E.2d 824, 293 IlLApp. 40 Mc- 
Carthy v. Rorrison, 283 IlLApp. 
129. 

Mich. Jacob v. Gratiot Central 
Market .Co., 255 N.W. 331, 267 
Mich. 262 West v. Detroit Ter- 
minal R. R., 201 N.W. 955, 229 
Mich. 590 Butzin v. Bonk, 6 N. 
W.2d 765, 303 Mich. 522 Neesley . 
v. Lord, 297 N.W. 226, 297 Mich. 
163 Dzikowski v. Michigan Cent 
R. R., 276 N.W. 470, 282 Mich. 337. 

Minn. Johnson v. Evanski, 22 N.W. 
2d 213 Kundiger v. Metropolitan 
Life Ins. Co., 15 N.W.2d 487, 218 
Minn. 273 Solberg v. Minneapolis 
St. Ry. Co., 7 N.W.2d 926, 214 
Minn. 274 Goldfine v. Johnson, 
29 1 4 N.W. 459, 208 Minn. 449 
Fredrickson v. Arrowhead Co-op. 
Creamery Ass'n, 277 N.W. 345, 202 
Minn. 12 Mardorf v. Duluth-Su- 
perior Transit Co., 261 N.W. 177, 
194 Minn. 637 Thorn v. Northern 



60 

Pac. Ry. Co., 252 N.W. 660, 190 
Minn. 622. 

N" .D. Nelson v. 'Scherling, 300 N.W. 
803, 71 N.D. 337 La Bree v. Dako- 
ta Tractor & Equipment Co., 288 
N.W. 476, 69 N.D. 561 Olstad v. 
Stockgrowers Credit Corporation, 
266 N.W. 109, 66 N.D. 416. 

Pa. In re Stewart's Estate, 47 A. 
2d 204 Chidester v. City of Pitts- 
burgh, '47 A.2d 130 Heenan v. 
Kelly, 46 A.2d 229, 359 Pa. 549 
Luckenbaugh v. Haughawout, 46 
A.2d 163, 353 Pa. 528 Holstein v. 
Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 34 
A.2d 491, 348 Pa. 183 Ashworth 
v. Hannum, 32 A.2d 407, 3'47 Pa. 
393 Earll v. Wichser, 30 A.2d 803, 
346 Pa. 357 Rea v. Pittsburgh 
Rys. Co., 25 A.2d 730, 344 Pa. 421 
Wascavage v. Susauehanna Col- 
lieries Co., 23 A.2d 509, 343 Pa. 
529 Wuerfel v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 22 A.2d 747, 3*43 Pa, 291 
Snyderwine v. McGrath, 22 A.2d 
644, 343 Pa. 245 Mamie v. Pitts- 
burgh & W. V. Ry. Co., 19 A.23 
404, 3*41 Pa. 4S6 Sorrentino v. 
Graziano, 17 A.2d 373, 341 Pa. 113 
Usher v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. 
Co., 16 A.2d 387, 340 Pa. 234 
Hardiman v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 
14 A.2d 72, 339 Pa. 79 Welch v. 
Sultez, 13 A.2d 399. 338 Pa. 583 
lacovino v. Caterino, 2 A.2d 828, 
332 Pa. 556 Lanciano v. Brown, 1 
.4.2d 246, 331 Pa. 497 Derr v. 
Rich, 200 A. 599, 331 Pa. 502 
Shoemaker v. Williams, 200 A. 255, 
131 Pa.Super. 546 Carter v. Pitts- 
burgh Rys. Co., 194 A. 900, 327 Pa, 
586 Kline v. Moyer, 191 A. 43, 
325 Pa. 357, 111 A.L.R. 406 Delair 
v. McAdoo, 1SS A. 181, 324 Pa. 3 
Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pa- 
cific Tea Co., 185 A. 613, 322 Pa. 
4-49 O'Farrell v. Mawson, 182 A. 
538, 320 Pa. 31 C Texas Co. 
Bituminous Service Co., 177 A. 
763, 318 Pa. 34 Haverkamp v. 
Sussman, 176 A. 206, 317 Pa. 187 
Bowman v. Press Pub. Co., 175 A. 
483, 316 Pa. 631 Graff v. Scott 
Bros., 172 A. 659, 315 Pa. 262 
Christ v. Hill Metal & Roofing Co., 
171 A. 607, 514 Pa. 375 Kulka v. 
Nemirovsky, 170 A. 261, 314 Pa, 
134 Ferguson v. Charis, 170 A. 
131, 313 Pa. 164 Conley v. Sim- 
mons, 167 A. 575, 312 Pa. 249 
McCracken v. Curwensville Bor- 
ough, 163 A. 217, 309 Pa. 98, 86 
A.L.R. 1379 Vlasich v. Baltimore 
& O, R. Co., 161 A. 70, 307 Pa. 255 
Hawk v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
160 A. 862, 307 Pa. 214 Adams v. 
Gardiner, 160 A. 589, 306 Pa. 576 
Lasater v. Conestoga Traction 
Co., 160 A. 447, 306 Pa. 500 Si- 
mon v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
Co., 160 A. Ill, 306 Pa. 466 Rod- 
gers v. Saxton, 158 A. 166, 305 Pa. 
479, 80 A.L.R. 280 Unterreiner v. 
Borough of Turtle Creek, 157 A. 
682, 305 Pa. 341 Galliano v. East 
Penn Electric Co., l&i A. 805, 803 



JUDGMENTS 

Pa. 498 Sollenberger Y. Pennsyl- 
vania R. Co., 139 A. 127, 290 Pa. 
415 Roberts v. Freihofer Baking 
Co., 129 A. 574, 283 Pa. '573 Mar- 
do v. Valley Smokeless Coal Co., 
123 A. 779, 279 Pa. 209 Kuneck v. 
Conti, 121 A. 324, 277 Pa. 455 
Kreuer v. Union Nat. Bank of Mc- 
Keesport, 119 A. 921, 276 Pa. 201 
Davis v. Carroll-Porter Boiler & 
Tank Co., 119 A. 742, 276 Pa. 71 
Vunak v. Walters, 43 A.2d 536, 157 
Pa.Super. 660 Hindes v. City of 
Pittsburgh, 38 A.2d 420, 155 Pa. 
Super. 314 Weismiller v. Farrell, 
34 A.2d 45, 153 Pa.Super. 366 
Blair, to Use of Davis, v. Adam- 
chick, 21 A.2d 107, 145 Pa.Super. 
125 Steingart v. 'Kaney, 19 A.2d 
499, 14'4 Pa.Super. 534 Adams v. 
Armour & Co., 16 A.2d 142, 142 Pa. 
"Super. 280 Roncace v. Welsh, 14 
A.2d 616, 141 Pa.Super. 170 Mc- 
Candless v. Krut, 14 A.2d 181, 140 
Pa.Super. 183 Frumkin v. Mayer, 
11 A.2d 767, 139 Pa.'Super. 139 
Pfeiffer v. Kraske, 11 A.2d 555, 139 
Pa.Super. 92 Acton v. Pennsyl- 
vania-Reading Seashore Lines, 
11 A.2d 203, 138 Pa.Super. 605 
Korenkiewicz v. Tork Motor Ex- 
press Co., 10 A.2d 864, 138 Pa.Su- 
per. 210 Bollver v. City of Phila- 
delphia, 9 A.2d 193, 137 Pa.Super. 
437 Adams v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 7 A.2d 544, 136 Pa.Super. 
454 Mitchell v. First Nat. Bank, 
7 A.2d 513, 136 Pa.Super. 467 
Moore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 7 
A.2d 162, 136 Pa.Super. 182 John- 
son v. Staples, 5 A.2d 433, 135 Pa. 
"Super. 274 Bateman v. Zorocoff, 
2 A.2d 574, 133 Pa.Super. 245 
Pellegrini v. Coll, 2 A.2d 491, 133 
pa.Super. 294 Marron v. Elm- 
quist, 200 A. 207, 132 PaJSuper. 12 
Ross v. Pennsylvania Under- 
writers Co., 187 A. 62, 123 Pa.Su- 
per. 484 Kovacs v. AJhar, 196 A. 
876, 130 Pa.Super. 149 laquinto v. 
Notarfrancesco, 195 A. 169, 129 Pa. 
Super. 121 O'Brien v. Borough of 
Jeannette, 194 A. 314, 128 Pa.Su- 
per. 443 Peters v. Colonial Life 
Ins. Co. of America, 193 A, 460, 
128 Pa.Super. 21 Kreiu v. Stei- 
gerwald, 193 A. 390, 128 Pa.Super. 
51 Fox v. Shoemaker, 193 A. 353, 
127 Pa.Super. 264 McDonough v. 
Borough of Munhall, 193 A. 326, 
127 Pa.Super. 226, reversed on oth- 
er grounds 200 A. 638, 331 Pa. 468 
Bradley v. Rhodes, 188 A. 564, 
124 Pa,Super. 161 Hahn v. Ander- 
son, 187 A. 4'50, 123 Pa.Super. 442, 
modified on other grounds 192 A. 
489, 326 Pa, 463 Lessy v. Great 
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 183 A. 
657, 121 Pa.'Super. 440 Morris v. 
Kauffman, 182 A. 758, 120 Pa.Su- 
per. 515 Hummel v. Quaker City 
Cabs, 182 A. 658, 120 Pa.Super. 527 
Kaminski v. Bradley, 182 A. 150, 
120 Pa.Super. 297 Ford v. Rein- 
oehl, 182 A. 120, 120 Pa.Super. 285 
Lawrence v. Winterbottom, 181 

168 



49 C.J.S. 

A. 852, 120 Pa.Super. 292 Ander- 
son v. Supplee Wills Jones Milk 
Co., 181 A. 368, 119 Pa.Super. 386 
Martinez v. Pinkasiewicz, 180 A. 
153, 118 PaJSuper. 200 Kissinger 
v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.. 180 A. 137, 
119 Pa.Super. 110 Young v. Yel- 
low Cab Co., 180 A. 63, 118 Pa. 
Super. 495 Zoeller v. Smallstig, 
179 A. 755, 118 Pa.Super. 265 
Woodsum v. City of McKeesport, 
179 A. 891, 118 Pa.Super. 205 
Dunn v. Dunn, 179 A. 795, 118 Pa. 
Super. 533 James v. Columbia 
County Agricultural, Horticultural 
& Mechanical Ass'n, 178 A. 326, 117 
Pa.Super. 2*77, reversed on other 
grounds 184 A. 447, 321 Pa. 465 
McDougall v. Schaab, 178 A. 168, 
117 Pa.Super. 285 Magri v. Mc- 
Curdy, 177 A. 349, 117 Pa.Super. 
32 Haas v. Fitzpatrick, 177 A. 
326, 117 Pa.Super. 21 Smallberger 
v. Carroll, 176 A. 867, 116 Pa.Su- 
per. 429 Beresin v. Pennsylvania 
R. Co., 176 A, 774, 116 PajSuper. 
291 Lewin v. Freihofer Baking 
Co., 176 A. 58, 115 PaJSuper. 558 
Glou v. Security Ben. Ass'n, 173 
A. 883, 114 Pa.Super. 139 Kelso 
v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 
170 A. 436, 112 Pa.Super. 124 
Scull v. Moross, 170 A. 366, 111 
Pa.Super. 581 Brown v. Bahl, 170 
A. 346, 111 Pa.Super. 598 Taylor 
v. Philadelphia Rural Transit Co., - 
170 A. 327, 111 Pa.Super. 575 
Luft v. Da Costa, 164 A. 137, 107 
Pa.Super. 553 Hohman v. Bor- 
ough of North Braddock, 156 A. 
705, 102 Pa.Super. 330 Smart v. 
Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylva- 
nia, 83 Pa/Super. 419 Creavy v. 
Ritter, 52 Pa.Dist. & Co. 666, 46 
Lack.Jur. 109 Clime v. Prudential 
Ins. Co. of America, 50 Pa.Dist. 
& Co. 43'3 Wool v. Johannes Kel- 
ler Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 16 Pa. 
Dist. & Co. 519, affirmed 163 A. 
38, 106 PajSuper. 492 Kobylis v. 
Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 27 Pa. 
Dist 3, affirmed 10-4 A. 595, 261 
Pa. 3'50 Marko v. Henry, Com.Pl., 
35 Berks Co. 75 Walborn v. Ep- 
ley, Com.Pl., 38 Berks Co. 117, af- 
firmed 24 A.2d 668, 148 Pa.'Super. 
417 Municipal Band of Harris- 
burg v. Aurand, Com.Pl., 54 Dauph. 
Co. 428 Kaylor v. Central Trust 
Co. of Harrisburg, Com.Pl., 54 
Dauph.Co. 366, affirmed 36 A.2d 
825, 154 Pa.Super. 633 Taylor v. 
Reading Co., Com.Pl., "51 Dauph.Co. 
69, affirmed 27 A.2d 901, 149 Pa. 
Super. 171 Eckenrode v. Produce 
Trucking Co., Com,Pl., 49 Dauph. 
Co. 271 Ensinger v. Hetrick, Com. 
PL, 49 DauphuCo. 135 Webb v. 
Hess, Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.Co. 84 
Harper v. Trainer Borough, Com. 
PI., 33 DeLCo. 229 Hartley v. Na- 
vickis, Com.PL, 33 DeLCo. 161 
Guarente v. Long, Com.PL, 33 Del. 
Co. 124 Reese v. Jonas, Com.PL, 
32 DeLCo. 582, 12 Som. 157 Yar- 
nail v. Railway Express Agency, 



49 C.J.S. 



JUDGMENTS 



60 



Com.PL, 32 DeLCo. 585 Pritchard 
v. Philadelphia. Suburban Transp. 
Co., Com.Pl., 32 DeLCo. 383 Kelly 
v. Carpenter, Com.Pl., 32 Del.Co. 
277 Rymer v. Devon, Com.Pl., 32 
Del.Co. 271 Wright v. Moyer, 
Com.Pl., 32 Del.Co. 79 -Preas B. 
Snyder & Co. v. Media-69th St. 
Mortgage Pool, Com. PI., 32 Del.Co. 
36 Jacobs v. Reading Co., Com.PL, 
31 Del.Co. '449 Daly v. Yeadon 
Borough, Com.Pl., 31 Del.Co. 380 
Murray v. Finnigan, Com.Pl., 31 
*>el.Co. 186 Freeman v. MacDon- 
ald, Com.Pl. f 31 Del.Co. 165 Brad- 
ley v. Yeadon Borough, Com.Pl. t 
SI Del. Co. 142 White v. Southern 
Pennsylvania Bus Co., Com.Pl., 31 
Del.Co. 67 Hill v. Terrizzi, Com. 
PI., 30 Del.Co. 503 Barbano v. 
Barbano, Com.PL, 30 Del.Co. 195, 
affirmed 16 A/2d 649, 142 Pa. Super. 
371 Bair v. Newgeon, Com.PL, 29 
Del.Co. *54 t 4 Hoover v. Montgom- 
ery, Com.PL, 29 Del.Co. 466 Saba- 
telli v. Scull, Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co. 
456 Bradley v. Harrison, Com.Pl., 
29 Del.Co. 275 Koch v. Shillady, 
Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co. 238 Johns v. 
Foley, Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co. 38 Por- 
.ter v. Philadelphia Suburban 
Transp. Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 
581 Phillips v. Aronimink Transp. 
Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 467 York- 
shire Worsted Mills v. National 
Transit Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 
402 Laycott v. McCready, Com. 
PL, 28 DeLCo. 333 Berberian v. 
Allsman, Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 374 
Turkington v. Jones, Com.Pl., 28 
DeLCo. 256 Lundy v. Devitt, 
Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 210 Roney v. 
Thompson, Com.PL, 27 DeLCo. 589 
Penn Dairies v. Central Drug, 
Com.PL, 27 Del.Co. 371 Preston 
v. Schroeder, Com.PL, 27 DeLCo. 
350 Randolph v. Freystown Mut. 
Fire Ins. Co., Com.PL, 27 DeLCo. 
285 Keller v. Mazzie, Com.PL, 26 
Erie Co. 318 Snyder v. Coleman, 
Com.PL, 26 Brie Co. 234 Glover 
v. Stoeltzlen, Com.PL, 26 Erie Co. 
178 Willman v. Peck, Com.PL, 26 
Erie Co. 156 Cotterman v. 
Hughes, Com.PL, 23 Erie Co. 341 
Theiss v. Moreland, Com.PL, 22 
Erie Co. 154 Graham v. Lee, Com. 
PL, 22 Erie Co. 66 Fuller v. Hel- 
ler, Com.PL, 21 Erie Co. 270 Shol- 
lenberger v. Werren, Com.PL, 20 
Erie Co. 33 Murphy v. Wellbrock, 
Com.PL, 46 Lack.Jur. 277 Mc- 
Veigh v. Scranton-Spring Brook 
Water Service Co., Com.PL, 46 
Lack.Jur. 177 Condel v. Savo, 
Com.PL, 46 Lack.Jur. 89 Walker 
v. Hornbeck, Com.PL, 45 Lack.Jur. 
257 Cutler v. Peck Lumber Mfg. 
Co., Com.PL, 45 Lack.Jur. 25, re- 
versed on other grounds 37 A.2d 
739, 350 Pa. 8 Weaver v. Scranton 
Bus Co.', Com.PL, 44 Lack.Jur. 233 
Dickson v. Bliss, Com.PL, 42 
Lack.Jur. 25 Todd v. Pickel, Com. 
PL, 49 Lanc.L.Rev. 139 Fegley v. 
Vogel-Ritt, Inc., Com.PL f 21 Leh. 



L.J. 306 Bauer v. Finger, Com.PL, 
19 Leh.L.J. 222 Piershalski v. 
Croop, Com.PL, 34 Luz.Leg.Reg. 
353 Hasker v. Mease, Com.PL, 
59 Montg.Co. 364 Stein v. Taylor, 
Com.PL, 56 Montg.Co. 199 Valen- 
tine v. Fisher, Com.PL, 55 Montg. 
Co. 192 Stewart v. Crawford, 
Com.PL, 55 Montg.Co. 164 Has- 
serick v. Walker, Com.PL, 55 
Montg.Co. 60 National Chair Co. 
v. Barrall, Com.PL, 15 Northumb. 
L.J. 26, affirmed 21 A.2d 36, 342 
Pa. 389 Samber v. Hahn, Com.PL, 
90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 465 Waldron v. 
Equitable Life Assur. -Soc., Com. 
PL, 90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 335 'Smolin- 
sky v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 
Com.PL, 7 Sch.Leg.Reg. 276, re- 
versed on other grounds 26 A. 
2d 131, 1'49 Pa.Super. 72 Howells 
v. Reading Co., Com.PL, 10 Sch. 
Reg. 179 Murphy v. Fetter, Com. 
PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 54 Mahmde v. 
Reading Co., Com.Pl., 7 Sch.Reg. 
33 Huey v. Blue Ridge Transp. 
Co., Com.PL, 24 Wash.Co. 147 
Jones v. Davis, Com.PL, 24 Wash. 
Co. 63r- Hall v. Spriggs, Com.PL, 

22 Wash.Co. 166 Klosky v. Gow- 
ern, Com.PL, 21 Wash.Co. 92 
Romonoski v. Harris, Com.PL, 20 
Wash.Co. 8? Kelly v. Ray, Com. 
PL, 20 Wash.Co. 82 Cullen v. 
Keystone Transfer Co., Com.PL, 
19 Wash.Co. 192 Snee v. Dunn, 
Com.PL, 19 Wash.Co. 94 McEl- 
fresh v. O'Brien, Com.PL, 18 Wash. 
Co. 114 Slezycki v. Waitas, Com. 
PL, 26 West.Co. 92 Wise v. Frey, 
Com.PL, 22 WestCo. 176 Cun- 
ningham v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
Com.PL, 58 York Leg.Rec. 49 Mil- 
ler v. Stump, Com.PL, 58 York 
Leg.Rec. 1 ! Shaw v. Malone, Com. 
PL, 55 York Leg.Rec. 150 Zinn v. 
Bentz, Com.PL, 5*5 York Leg.Rec. 
149 Arnold v. Frey, Com.PL, 52 
York.Leg.Rec. 163. 

S.C. Drag v. Ellis, 36 <S.E.2d 73. 

S.D. Strain v. Shields, 256 N.W. 
268, 63 S.D. 60. 

Tex. Traders & General Ins. Co. v. 
Bass, Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 848, 
refused no reversible error Shield 
Co. v. Cartwright, Civ.App., 172 S. 
W.2d 108, affirmed 177 S.W.2d 954, 
142 Tex. 324 Warren v. Schawe, 
Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 415, error re- 
fused. 

Wash. Geri v. Bender, 168 P.2d 1'44 
Ziniewiez v. Department of La- 
bor and Industries, 161 P.2d 315, 

23 Wash,2d 436 Ruff v. Fruit De- 
livery Co., 157 P.2d 730, 22 Wash. 
2d 708 Mathers v. Stephens, 156 
P.2d 227. 22 Wash.2d 364 Omeitt 
v. Department of Labor and Indus- 
tries, 152 P,2d 973, 21 Wash.2d 684 
Carroll v. Union Pac. R. Co., 146 
P.2d 813, 20 Wash.2d 191 White 
v. Fenner, 133 P.2d 270, 16 Wash. 
2d 226 Billingsley v. Rovig-Tem- 
ple Co., 133 P.2d 265, 16 Washed 
202 Griffin v. Cascade Theatres 
Corporation, 117 P.2d 651, 10 

169 



Wash.2d 574 Peterson v. May- 
ham, 116 P.2d 259, 10 Washed 111 
Fosdick v. Middendorf, 115 P. 
2d 670, 9 Wash,2d 616 Morris v. 
Chicago, M., St P. & P. R. Co., 
97 P.2d 119, 1 Wash.2d 587, opin- 
ion adhered to 100 P.2d 19, 1 
Wash.2d 587 Steen v. Polyclinic, 
81 P*2d 846, 195 Wash. 666 Ham- 
ilton v. Cadwell, 81 P.2d 815, 195 
Wash. 683 Corbaley v. Pierce 
County, 74 P.2d 993, 192 Wash. 688 
Caylor v. B. C. Motor Transp.r 
71 P.2d 162, 191 Wash. 365 Chess 
v. Reynolds, 66 P.2d 297, 189 
Wash. 547 Boyd v. Cole, 68 P.2d 
931, 189 Wash. 81 Mitchell v. 
Cadwell, 62 P.2d 41, 188 Wash. 
257 Larpenteur v. Eldridge Mo- 
tors, 55 P.2d 1064, 185 "Wash, 530 
Shumaker v. Charada Inv. Co., 
49 P.2d 44, 183 Wash. 521 Mitch- 
ell v. Rice, 48 P.2d 9'49, 183 Wash. 
402 Hayden v. ColviUe Valley 
Nat. Bank, 39 P.2d 376, 180 Wash. 
220, rehearing denied 43 P.2d 32 
Gaskill v. Amadon, 38 P.2d 229, 
179 Wash. 375 Green v. Langnes, 
32 P.2d 565, 177 Wash. 536 Mu- 
tual Life Ins. Co. of New York 
v. Campbell, 16 P.2d 836, 170 
Wash. 485 Hansen v. Continental 
Casualty Co., 287 P. 894, 156 Wash, 
691 Marsten v. Bill Warner, Inc., 
254 P. 850, 148 Wash. 58 Metro- 
politan Club v. Massachusetts 
Bonding & Insurance Co., 220 P. 
818, 127 Wash. 320. N 

Impeachment of witness 

(1) In passing on motion for 
judgment notwithstanding verdict 
for plaintiff, court had no right to 
pass on credibility of" witnesses, to 
consider any purported impeach- 
ments, weight thereof, or weight of 
testimony. Vieceli v. Cummings, 54 
N.E.2d 717, 322 IlLApp. 559. 

(2) A court is not justified in 
ignoring a verdict merely because 
witnesses for plaintiff may have 
made contradictory statements as to 
the cause of results established, or 
because experts testified that death 
could not have been caused as con- 
tended by plaintiff. Kundiger v. 
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 16 N.W.2d 
487, 218 Minn. 273. 

(3) However, the rule that explan- 
atory, conflicting, or contradictory 
evidence must be excluded from con- 
sideration in passing on motion for 
judgment notwithstanding verdict 
does not mean that, where a witness 
contradicts himself on a material 
point, court must consider only that 
part of his testimony on that point 
which favors party for whom he 
testifies. Fitch v. Thomson, 54 N.E. 
2d 623, 322 IlLApp. 703. 
Uncorroborated testimony . 

In passing on motion for judg- 
ment non obstante veredicto, trial 
judge could not disregard witness' 
testimony merely because it was 
not corroborated. Szidor v. Greek 



60 



JUDGMENTS 



49 C.J.S. 



ich evidence it should be inherently incredible; 57 
nd evidence not in conflict with such evidence, and 
r hich is not inherently incredible, will also be ac- 
epted as true. 58 The successful party at the trial 
> not entitled to favorable inferences from a lack 
f testimony, 59 or from broad general statements 
rtiich are opposed by definite evidence from his 
wn witnesses. 60 

If there is in the record evidence which, stand- 
ig alone, tends to prove the material allegations 



of the pleadings of the party opposed to the mo- 
tion, it should be denied, even though on the entire 
record the evidence may preponderate against the 
party in opposition to such motion, so that a ver- 
dict in his favor could not stand when tested by a 
motion for a new trial ; 61 and no contradictory evi- 
dence of any kind will justify a judgment notwith- 
standing the verdict for plaintiff except uncontra- 
dicted evidence of facts consistent with every fact 
which his evidence tends to prove, but showing af- 



Jatholic TJnion of Russian Brother- 
loods of U. S., 21 A.2d 104, 145 Pa. 
Super. 251 Jeske v. City of Pitts- 
>urgh, 168 A. '323, 110 Pa.Super. 274. 

Pacts found "by jury admitted 

A motion for judgment notwith- 
standing verdict admits for purpose 
)f motion the existence of facts 
'ound by jury and asserts that, tak- 
ng verdict at its face, judgment 
should go the other way. -Wisconsin 
TeL Co. v. Russell, 7 N.W.2d 825, 
242 Wis. 2<47 Volland v. McGee, 294 
NT.W. 497, 236 Wis. 3-58, rehearing 
lenied 295 N.W. 635, 236 Wis. 358. 

Evidence admitted for special pur- 
pose 

Where insurer denied liability on 
life policy on ground of insured's 
misrepresentation in applicati