Wortham v. Harrison
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Red River. Tlie action in this ease was brought on a note which became due on the first January, 1849, but which bore interest from the first day of January, 184S. Tlie defendant was duly served with process, but failing to appear and make defense, judgment final by default was, on the 2d November, entered «against him for tlie debt in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, and for interest amounting to tlie sum of one hundred dollars.
Read the full summary
Error from Red River. Tlie action in this ease was brought on a note which became due on the first January, 1849, but which bore interest from the first day of January, 184S. Tlie defendant was duly served with process, but failing to appear and make defense, judgment final by default was, on the 2d November, entered «against him for tlie debt in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, and for interest amounting to tlie sum of one hundred dollars. From this judgment a writ of error was sued out by the defendant. The defendant in error suggested that not only was this appellate process taken for…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
That there is a mlsailcnlation of the amount of interest is obvious. The interest for the. year 1848, or for one entire year, is entirely omitted. It is true that this is an error which could have been corrected below, (art. 786, Dig.,) and as tlie statute has pointed out a specific mode for that purpose1, this should generally he pursued; but although tlie District Court lias authority to malee such corrections, yet this does not preclude tlie Supreme Court from the exercise of its established power to reform judgments so as to accord with tin* rights of tlie parties, and to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Findlay v. State of TexasTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- Pridgen v. BonnerTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- Green v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1890