Bennett v. Hazlehurst Mercantile Co.
Bennett v. Hazlehurst Mercantile Co., for use, etc.
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Russell, J.
1. A party may voluntarily write off a portion of a verdict and judgment rendered in his favor, at any time prior to the judgment upon a pending motion for a new trial, without in any wise prejudicing the rights of the opposite party. That the finding against the losing party is reduced in amount does not of itself afford the latter any ground for complaint. Juridically error can not be shown unless it is accompanied by injury.
2. The plaintiff in fi. fa. having voluntarily amended the judgment finding all of the articles of property which were in dispute subject to the levy of his fi. fa., so as to leave nothing but “one small black mare mule named Kit, about 8 years old,” and the evidence as to the ownership of the mule being conflicting, and there being circumstances from which *592 tlie jury could as well infer that the mule was the property of the defendant in fi. fa. as that she belonged to the claimant, the judgment of the trial court refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.
Decided January 24, 1911. Levy and claim; from Jeff Davis superior court — Judge Conyers. May 21, 1910. P. L. Smith, for plaintiff in error. II. A. King, contra.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.