And generally a judgment cannot be rendered in excess of the amount named in the petition or declaration. Horton v. St. Louis etc. R, 83 Mo. 541; Poulson v. Collier, 18 Mo. App. 583; Pendergrast v. Hodge, 21 Mo. App. 138; Wilbur . Maynard, 6 Col. 483; Claveries' Succ., 34 La. An. 1122; Frazier 7. Woodward, 61 Tex. 449.

It is error to render judgment in an action of trespass to try title for land, a portion of which is not embraced in the description given in the pleadings of the land in controversy. Throckmorton v. Davenport, 55 Tex. 236.

In suits on penal bonds with collateral conditions, judgment should not be entered for more than the penalty of the bond. Showler v. Freeman, 81 Mo. 540.

A court which administers relief as a court of equity will administer the appropriate remedy, though it may not be in response to the specific prayer for relief. Dempsey v. Rhodes, 93 N. Car.

120.

Where service has been had so as to warrant a general judgment in an attachment suit, it need not follow the attachment and may be rendered although the attachment may fall by reason of irregularities. Bruce v. Lowman Gold etc. Min. Co., 64 Ga. 769.

It was held that a judgment in favor of F & R could not be rendered when the cause of action was stated to be in favor of F, R & Co. Cantrell v. Fowler, 24 S. Car. 424.

A judgment rendered in favor of parties not mentioned as parties in the pleadings is error. Bell v. Vanzandt, 54 Tex. 150.

A judgment on the pleadings is not authorized if the answer deny the material allegations of the complaint, although in a special defence separately stated the allegations formerly denied are admitted. Bolto v. Vandament, 67

Cal. 332.

Where the record fails to show the filing of a replication to a special plea, a trial and judgment in the absence of the defendant and his attorney will be irregular and erroneous. Blake v. Miller, 118 Ill. 500. But not so in all cases if parties are present and proceed to trial and verdict. Imperial Fire Ins. Co. v. Shimer, 96 Ill. 580.

Where the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, a finding "that the allegations of the complaint are true," is not sufficient to support a judgment for the plaintiff.

See

Kundson v. Curley, 30 Minn. 433. also Rosenkranz v. Wagner, 62 Cal. 151.

Verdict.-Judgment should not be entered on a verdict or findings which leave part of the issues undisposed of. Southern Pac. R. v. Crampton, 63 Cal. 537; Murphy v. Bennett, 68 Cal. 528; Du Prat v. James, 61 Cal. 361. Compare Doty v. Sumner, 12 Neb. 278.

Nor upon a verdict not sustained by the pleadings. State v. Shum, 42 N. J. L. 138; Burnett v. Harrington, 58 Tex.

359.

When, under the provisions of a statute, the court shall have instructed the jury that if they render a general verdict to find upon particular questions of fact, stating the same in writing, and directing a written finding thereon, the jury shall fail to agree to a finding upon the whole or a part of such questions, but shall find a general verdict, it is error on the part of said court-over the objection of the defendant, against whom is the said general verdict-to receive such verdict, and judgment thereon will be reversed. Doom v. Walker, 15 Neb. 339.

Judgment may be entered on special findings where there is no general verdict. Bixby v. Wilkinson, 27 Minn. 262. But not where the special findings cover only a part of the material issues. Hodges 7. Easton, 106 U. S. 408.

A judgment may be rendered on facts specially found, notwithstanding the general verdict, only when such facts are consistent with each other, and so inconsistent with the general verdict as to be irreconcilable by any legitimate evidence. Carver 7. Leedy, So Ind. 335

A judgment for one cent damages will not be reversed, because entered upon a special verdict in favor of the plaintiff for "nominal damages," if in other respects proper. Davidson v. Devine, 70 Cal. 519.

In an action in the name of the people against a telegraph company for unlawfully maintaining poles in a public street, a judgment declaring the poles a public nuisance and requiring their removal cannot be entered on a verdict for six cents damages. People v. Metropolitan Telephone etc. Co., 31 Hun (N. Y.) 596.

Where under the practice established in Utah, issues are tried by the court, its findings of fact should be announced and filed before the entry of the judgment. Kahn v. Central Smelting Co., 102 U. S. 641.

Where plaintiff's recovery is for an amount so small as to entitle defendant to costs for a greater amount, there should be but one judgment; and the fact that thus the plaintiff's attorneys will be prejudiced is of no consequence. Warden . Frost, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 141. Where the statute provides that the jury must assess the amount of the recovery, which it fails to do, there is no authority for the rendition by the court of judgment for any particular sum. Bowers v. Rice, 19 Neb. 576.

Where the judgment is not authorized by the pleadings alone, it should conform to the verdict. Nordvke v. Dickson, 76 Ind. 188; Eason . Miller, 15 S. Car. 194.

Material omissions in the verdict cannot be supplied. See Cobb v. Wise, 71 Ga. 103; Cram v. Stiles, 47 Mich. 129; Shoemaker v. St. Louis etc. R. Co.. 30 Kan. 359.

1. It was held that where a verdict was rendered on Saturday morning while the court was in session a probate decree thereon was properly entered and dated as of that day, although the entry was not actually made until after the expiration of office hours. Lanier v. Russell, 74 Ala. 364; Lanier v. Richardson, 72 Ala. 134.

A judgment entry need not specify the particular hour. Wilson v. Greenwood, 5 Del. 519.

In Connecticut, where a suit is withdrawn in term time and the defendant afterwards enters for costs, which are taxed in his favor and judgment entered up for their amount against the plaintiff, the judgment is to be regarded as rendered at the time of the withdrawal and not at that of the taxing of the costs. 48 Conn. 301.

2. Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 45. But see Yates v. Robertson, So Va. 473. 3. Herring v. Polley, 8 Mass. 113; Chase . Gilman, 15 Me. 64; Goodall v. Harris, 20 N. H. 363.

4. McGan v. O'Neil, 5 Col. 433; Greenwood . Bradford, 128 Mass. 296; Balm 7. Nunn, 63 Iowa 641. Compare Headly v. Miller, 63 Wis. 173; McDowell . McDowell, 92 N. Car. 227.

See also Dowden . Wilson, 108 Ill. 257.

An agreement that a case shall be heard in vacation and fixing the limit of the time for taking testimony, does not constitute a submission of the case which will authorize the entry of judg ment by the judge after the expiration of such time without the knowledge of one of the parties or his counsel and while a portion of his evidence has not in fact been taken. Cate v. Gilman, 54 Iowa 576.

The fact that the court adjourned to a particular day and hour, but opened on the day named by proclamation and entered a judgment at an hour earlier than that named in the adjournment, was held not to invalidate the judgment. Richardson v. Beldam, IS Ill. App. 527.

In some States the clerk of the court may enter judgment by confession in vacation. Weinges v. Cash, 15 S.. Car. 44.

-

When Rendered. When an action has been heard upon its merits. and nothing remains to be done but to give judgment, unless one of the parties suggests good ground for delay, it is the duty of the court to render a final judgment without delay. Burgess v. Kirby, 94 N. Car. 575. See also Columbia Huntress . Hurd, 74 Me. 450. v.

It is no valid reason for withholding a judgment that there may be no way in which it can be satisfied. Shurtleff 7. Wiscasset, 74 Me. 130.

While a trial should be completed, so far at least as the introduction of testitimony is concerned, at the term at which it is commenced, yet where a trial is to the court without a jury, and all the testimony is offered, the arguments concluded and the case submitted to the court for judgment, the court may take the case under advisement to the next or succeeding term, and a judgment rendered under such circumstances by the court at the succeeding term is not illegal or Tarpenning . Cannon, 28 Kan. 665. v.

In Georgia, except in cases expressly provided for, a judgment rendered at the

first term after suit brought does not affect the rights of claimants and other third persons. State v. Gaskill, 68 Ga. 518.

For further construction of statute allowing judgment at the first term after action brought, see Tweed v. Dayett, 5 Del. 526.

A decree prepared by a judge, but not filed until his successor is elected and qualified is a nullity. Russell v. Sargent, 7 Ill. App. 98.

So where the term of office of a judge who tried the case expires after an order of judgment has been entered, but before the findings have been filed, no valid judgment can be entered without a new trial, unless agreed findings are filed or waived. Mace v. O'Reilley, 70 Cal. 231. But it has been held that judgment might be ordered by another judge than the one before whom the case was tried. Union Pacific R. v. Byrne, 2 Wyo. 109.

A judgment by agreement for entry on final judgment in another action cannot be entered during the pendency of a motion for a new trial in the other action. Gillmore . American Central Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 63.

In some States a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff after his death is voidable but not void. Gilman v. Donovan, 53 Iowa 362. Nor is a judgment dismissing an action for want of prosecution void, although made after his death and without the substitution of his personal representative. Wallace . Center, 67 Cal. 133.

1. Spence v. Simmons, 16 Ala. 828.

Judgment of Conviction.-"In the first part it is usual and proper to set forth in the minutes of the court the title and number of the case, the calling of the case for trial, the appearance of the parties, the plea of the defendant, and if 'not guilty' the selection, impanelling and swearing of the jury, the submission of the evidence, the charge of the court, the return of the verdict and the finding of the jury. In the second part it should be declared upon the record in connection with the verdict, in the event of a conviction, that it is -considered by the court that the defendant is adjudged to be guilty of the offence as found by the jury; and that

the defendant be punished as it has been determined by the jury-in cases where they have the right to determine the amount, or the duration and place of punishment-setting forth particularly the amount, or the duration and place of punishment, in accordance with the nature and terms of the punishment prescribed in the verdict." Mayfield 7. State, 40 Mayfield . State, 40 Tex. 290; Roberts v. State, 3 Tex. App. 47.

2. Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 50; McGlue 7. Philadelphia, 105 Pa. St. 236. But see Union Union Pacific R. v. Byrne, 2 Wyo. 109.

In some States the clerk of the court may enter judgment by confession. Grattan 7. Matteson, 54 Iowa 229; Weinzer v. Cash, 15 S. Car. 44; Bunn v. Gardiner, 18 Ill. App. 94.

A judgment entered by the clerk in vacation without statutory authority and without any action of the court authorizing or approving of such entry, is void. Townsley void. Townsley v. Morehead, 9 Iowa 565; Spear . Fitchpatrick, 37 Iowa 127; Balm v. Nunn, 63 Iowa 641; Lee v. Carrollton etc. Assoc., 58 Md. 301.

3. Nichols v. Stewart, 21 Ill. 106; Smith v. Trimble, 27 Smith 7. Trimble, 27 Ill. 152; Anderson v. Reed, 11 Iowa 177; Lauderman v'. McKinson, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 234; Mudd v. Rogers, 10 La. An. 648; Berry v. Anderson, 2 How. (Miss.) 652; Early v. Moore, 4 Munf. (Va.) 262.

But a judgment for "said sum of— dollars, assessed as aforesaid," referring to a verdict for a definite sum, has been upheld. Ellis . Dunn, 3 Ala. 632; 7. Dyer . Hatch, 1 Ark. 339.

A judgment for a certain sum of money and interest from a certain day is sufficiently definite. is sufficiently definite. Wilbur v. Abbott, 58 N. H. 272.

A judgment which purports to be for costs only and in which the amount thereof is left blank is erroneous. Mosher v. Uintah County, 2 Wyo. 443. Compare Palmer v. Glover, 73 Ind. 529.

It was held that where the amount of the judgment was left blank, the successor of the judge who made the record could not look beyond it to ascertain for what amount, if any, the judge intended. judge intended to render judgment. Giddings v. Giddings v. Giddings, 70 Iowa 486.

4

1. Erlanger. Avegno, 24 La. An. 77; Patten v. United States, 15 Ct. Cl. (U. S.) 2SS.

In an action on a contract payable in gold coin, it has been held that the judgment must be for gold coin specifically. Knox v. Gerhauser, 3 Mont. 267; Emery. Langley, 1 Idaho, N. S. 694. And it has been held that where a judgment for gold coin is irregular, it is not void and a purchaser at a sale under such a judgment acquires a good title. Hazard. Cole, 1 Idaho, N. S. 276.

A judgment for a given amount in "clean Boise Basin gold at sixteen dollars per ounce" is bad. Betts v. Butler, I Idaho 185.

2. Ilittson . Davenport, 4 Cal. 169; Chesapeake. Swain, 29 Md. 483; Paddock . Commercial Ins. Co., 104 Mass. 521; Ind. Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 104 Mass. 192; Kellogg . Sweeney, 46 N. Y. 291; Bronson . Rodes, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 229; Cheaug Kee . U. S., 3 Wall. (U.S.) 320; Butler v. Horwitz, 7 Wall. (U.S.) 258; Dewing . Sears, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 379; Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 687. Compare Reed v. Eldredge, 27 Cal. 348; Whitstone v. Colley, 36 Ill. 328: Olanyer v. Blanchard, 18 La. Ån. 616; Buchegger . Schultz, 13 Mich. 420; Burling v. Goodman, 1 Nev. 314.

3. Jones . Minogue, 29 Ark. 637; Gayle . Singleton, I Stew. (Ala.) 566; Tribble . Davis, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 633; McManus 7. Stevens, 10 La. An. 177; Hurt v. Moore, 19 Tex. 269.

But the judgment may refer to the bill or complaint for a description of the property. Jones . Belt, 2 Gill (Md.) 106. Or to the report of a commissioner. Posey . Green, 78 Ky. 162.

A tax judgment against certain land described as S.2, N. E. and N. W., S.E. of a designated section, township and range, was held to be fatally defective. Keith v. Hayden, 26 Minn.

212.

4. It has been held insufficient to enter the amount in figures preceded by the dollar mark. Smith. Miller, 3

Halst. (Tenn.) 175; s. c., 14 Am. Dec. 418; Linder v. Monroe, 33 Ill. 390. But it would seem to be the better opinion that a judgment for a sum of money so expressed is valid against collateral attack at least. Fullerton v. Kelliher, 48 Mo. 542; Hopper v. Lucas, 86 Ind. 43.

The entry of the amount of the judgment in figures without the use of the dollar mark ($) has been held to render the judgment void, especially in cases of judgments for taxes. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. Chicago, 53 Ill. So; Carpenter . Sherfy, 71 Ill. 427; Peter v. Hill, 13 Ill. App. 36; Lane. Bommelman, 21 Ill. 143; Lawrence . East, 20 Ill. 338; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201. See also Hopper . Lucas, 86 Ind. 43. But a more reasonable view seems to be to uphold such a judgment when the complaint makes certain what was intended. Carr v. Andersoon, 24 Miss. 188; Gutzwiller v. Crowe, 32 Minn. 70.

Filling Blanks Afterwards.-The failureof the clerk to fill in the amount of the judgment in blank spaces left for that purpose, until fourteen months after entry of the judgment, did not render it invalid on collateral attack, though it might sustain a writ of error. Lind v. Adams, 10 Iowa 398. But see Case ?. Plato, 54 Iowa 64; Giddings . Giddings, 70 Iowa 486.

5. Spence . Simmons, 16 Ala. 829; Turner v. Dupree, 19 Ala. 198; Joseph's Admr. . His Legatees, 5 Ala. 280; Steamer Mollie Hamilton . Paschal, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 203.

But a judgment for or against plaintiffs or defendants generally, without mention of names, may be explained by a reference to the caption, record or pleadings Collins . Hyslop, 11 Ala. 508; Finnagan . Manchester, 12 Iowa 521; McCartney 7. Kittrell, 55 Miss. 253 Smith v. Chenault, 48 Tex. 455; Hays . Yarborough, 21 Tex. 487; Little . Birdwell, 27 Tex. 6SS; Wilson v. Nance, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 189.

But in Louisiana a judgment creates no lien against the property of a defendant whose name is not mentioned

in the judgment entry. Ford v. Tilden, 7 La. An. 533.

1. Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 47; McWilliams v. Walthall, 65 Ga. 109; Leviston v. Swan, 33 Cal. 480; Minkhart v. Hankler, 19 Ill. 47; Johnson v. Gillett, 52 Ill. 360; Church v. Crossman, 41 Iowa 373; Taylor v. Runyan, 3 Clarke (Iowa) 474; Lewis v. Watrus, 7 Neb. 477; Ordinary v. McClure, i Bailey (S. Car) 7; Huntington v. Blakeney, I Wash. Ter.129; Deadrick v. Harrington, Hempst. (U. S.) 50; Wells v. Hogan, Breese (Ill.) 337; Armel v. Layton, 29 Kan. 576; Decker v. Kitchen, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 173; Huntington v. Blakeney, 1 Wash. Ter. 111; Hartly v. White, 94 Pa. St. 31; Marsh v. Snyder, 14 Neb. 8. Compare Baker v. State, 3 Pike (Ark.) 491; Ware v. Pennington, 15 Ark. 226.

The omission of the clerk to sign a judgment does not render it invalid. Jorgenson v. Griffin, 14 Minn. 466; Hotchkiss v. Cutting, 14 Minn. 542. Nor is a judgment invalid because entered in the wrong book. Jorgensen v. Griffin, 14 Minn. 464. Nor because the clerk failed to test it and mark it filed. Clark v. Melton, 19 S. Car. 498. A judgment entered up and signed by counsel on the verdict of a jury need not be spread upon the minutes. Powell v. Perry, 63 Ga. 417.

A clause in a judgment for the defendant, in an action to recover real estate, to the effect that the judgment shall not prejudice the rights of the parties as to any other action, practically nullifies the judgment, and on motion should have been stricken out or modified. Evans v. Shafer, 86 Ind. 135.

Where the master's report fully states his conclusions of law and fact separately, a circuit decree which simply confirms the report is unobjectionable in form. Wood v. Babb, 16 S. Car. 427.

An entry of judgment by a justice, so imperfect that the parties to it cannot be identified, except by reference to

the entry of another case, is void. McClellan v. Cornwell, 2 Coldw. (Tenn) 298.

Partnership Name.-A judgment in favor of a firm is not void because entered in the name of the firm instead of the individuals composing the firm. Davis v. Kline, 76 Mo. 310.

Name. The omission of the initial letter of a defendant's middle name in the entry and docketing of a judgment does not prevent its becoming a lien upon his land as against subsequent purchasers in good faith. Clute v. Emmerich, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 10; Hopper v. Lucas, 86 Ind. 43.

Idem Sonans.-A judgment against Joseph Shaffer, quieting title to a certain piece of land, rendered upon a default and upon service by publication. only, is valid and binding as against the owner of the land whose name is Joseph Shafer. Rowe v. Palmer, 29 Kan.. 337.

But it must appear that what is offered as the record of a judgment is. really such, and not mere memoranda from which the judgment was to be drawn. Hinson v. Wall, 20 Ala. 298; Traer 7. Whitman, 5 Iowa 443; Martin. v. Barnhardt, 39 Ill. 9; Wheeler v. Scott, 3 Wis. 362; Taylor v. Runyan, 3 Clarke (Iowa) 474.

Objections to the form of the judgments cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in an appellate court. Smith 7. Tatman, 71 Ind. 171; Baddeley v. Patterson, 78 Ind. 157.

2. Foot v. Glover, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 313; Fowler . Doyle, 16 Iowa 534; Finnagan . Manchester, 12 Iowa 521; Bell Massey, 14 La. An. 831; Clay v.. Hildebrand, 34 Kan. 694.

In such a case the judgment may be construed in the light of an accompanying opinion. New Orleans etc. R. Co.. v. New Orleans, 14 Fed. Rep. 373.

3. Aten 7. Brown, 14 Ill. App. 451; Enterprise Distilling Co. v. Bradley, 17 Ill. App. 509; Fisk 7. Henarie, 14 Oreg. 29; Proctor v. Lewis, 50 Mich. 329;.