decision, and the award of execution,2 are not parts of the judgment. It has been affirmed that a judgment is a contract or in the nature of a contract,3 justice or other competent tribunal, as the result of proceedings instituted therein for the redress of an injury. Bouv. Law Dict.; 3 Black Com. 395; Blood v. Bates, 31 Vt. 150. A judgment is the conclusion that naturally and regularly follows from the premises of law and fact, and depends not therefore on the arbitrary caprice of the judge, but on the settled and invariable principles of justice. In re Sedgeley Avenue, 88 Pa. St. 513. A judgment in its legal acceptation is the determination of some judicial tribunal created by law for the administration of public justice according to law, and is in strictness the determination of the law. Blood v. Bates, 31 Vt. 150. A judgment is the decision of a controversy, given by a court of justice, between parties who do not agree. Union Bank v. Marin, 3 La. An. 35. Every final or definitive sentence or decision of the supreme court by which the merits of a cause are settled or determined, although such sentence is not technically a judgment, or the proceedings are not capable of being enrolled so as to constitute what is technically called a record, is a judgment. In re Negus, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 44. A judgment is the decision or sentence of a court on the main question in a proceeding, or on one of the questions, if there are several. Rap. & L. Law Dict. A judgment is the decision or sentence of the law, pronounced by a court or other competent tribunal upon the matter contained in the record. Jac. Law Dict.; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Swift, 12 Minn. 437. A judgment is a final decision, entered of record, in a book of judgments under the signature of a judge. Evans v. Adams, 3 Green (N. J.) 383. A judgment is a settled adjudication of an existing debt. It is also a power by means of which a creditor may enforce his claims by the sale of the debtor's property. Nichols v. Dissler, 2 Vroom (N. J.) 473 A judgment is the end of the law. Blystone v. Blystone, 51 Pa. St. 373 A judgment is an adjudication of the rights of the parties in respect to the claim involved. McNulty v. Hurd, 72 N. Y. 521. Definitions Under Codes. A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding. N. Y. Code, § 245; Kan. Code, § 395; Cal. Code of C. P.. 577; Oreg. Code, § 240. See Freeman on Judg., 14. Judgment of his peers means a trial by a jury of twelve men, according to the course of the common law. Knight v. Campbell, 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 34; Wright v. Wright's Lessee, 2 Md. 453; State v. Simons, 2 Spear (S. Car.) 768. Judgment Nisi.-What is called a judgment nisi is nothing more than a rule to show cause why judgment should not be rendered. Young v. McPherson, Penn. (N. J.) 897. Judgment (in criminal law) is the appropriate word to denote the action of the court before which the trial is had, declaring the consequences to the convict of the fact ascertained by his conviction. Com. v. Lockwood, 109 Mass. 325. 1. Burk v. Table Mountain Co., 12 Cal. 408; Davidson v. Carroll, 23 La. An. 108. But in case of ambiguity, an accompanying opinion may be permitted to govern the meaning of the judgment. New Orleans etc. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 14 Fed. Rep. 373 2. Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.). § 2; Kramer v. Rebman, 9 Iowa 114; Gregory v. Nelson, 41 Cal. 278. But orders directing the payment of judgments in coined dollars have been sustained as parts thereof. Hittson v. Davenport, 4 Colo. 169; Chesapeake v. Swain, 29 Md. 483; Paddock v. Conn. Ins. Co., 104 Mass. 521; Ind Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 104 Mass. 192; Kellogg v. Sweeney, 46 N. Y. 291; Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 229; Cheang Kee v. U. S., 3 Wall. (U. S.) 320; Butler v. Horwitz, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 258; Dewing v. Sears, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 379; Trebilock v. Wilson, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 687. Compare Reed v. Eldredge, 27 Cal. 348; Whitstone v. Colley, 36 III. 328; Olanyer v. Blanchard, 18 La. An. 616; Buchegger v. Schultz, 13 Mich. 420; Burling v. Goodman, 1 Nev. 314. 3. Stuart . Landers, 16 Cal. 372; Morse v. Tappan, 3 Gray (Mass.) 411; but the better authorities sustain the contrary opinion.1 II. CLASSES OF JUDGMENTS-1. Judgments in the Several Actions. -A judgment quod recuperet (that he do recover) is given for the plaintiff when an issue of law formed by a demurrer to any of the pleadings in chief is determined in his favor.2 A judgment respondeat ouster is given for the plaintiff on demurrer to a plea in abatement, when the defendant has mistaken. the law on a point not affecting the merits of the case, and it allows him to plead any further defence he may have.3 A judgment of nil capiat per breve or per billum is a judgment in favor of the defendant upon an issue raised upon a declaration or peremptory plea.4 A judgment quod partes replacitent is a judgment for repleader when an issue has been formed and a verdict returned upon so immaterial a point that the court cannot know for whom to give judgment.5 Judgment by default is obtained when one party neglects to take a certain step in the action within the proper time.6 A judgment nihil dicit is one rendered against a defendant for want of a plea." A judgment non sum informatus is rendered against defendant when he enters upon the record that he is not informed of any defence to the action.8 A judgment by confession (relicta verificatione) is entered against a defendant when instead of entering a plea he confesses the action or when after pleading and before trial he abandons his plea.9 A judgment non obstante veredicto is a judgment rendered notwithstanding a verdict when the plea confesses a cause of action and relies upon matter in avoidance which is insufficient, although found true, to constitute either a defence or a bar to the action.10 A judgment of non pros. (non prosequitur) is entered against the plaintiff before any issue is joined for not declaring, replying or surrejoining or for not entering the issue agreeably to the rules of the court.11 A judgment of nolle prosequi is entered against plaintiff when Guire v. Gallagher, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 402. 1. Smith v. Harrison, 33 Ala. 706; Masterson v. Gibson, 56 Ala. 56; Keith 7. Estill, 9 Port. (Ala.) 669; Larrabee v. Baldwin, 35 Cal. 156; Rae v. Hulbert, 17 Ill. 572; Wyman v. Mitchell, 1 Cow. (N. Y.)321; Todd v. Crumb, 5 McLean (U. S.) 172; In re Kennedy, 2 S. C., N. S. 226; Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 4. See also Burnes v. Simpson, 9 Kan. 658. 2. Freemanon Judg., §7; Steph. Pl. 126. 3. Freeman on Judg., § 7. 4. Bouv. Law Dict. 5. Freeman on Judg., § 7; Bouv. Law Dict. 6. Rap. & L. Law Dict.; Grigg v. Gilmer, 54 Ala. 430; Rhodes v. De Bow, 5 Iowa 265. Under the code there is no difference in principle between a final judgment against a defendant in default for failure to answer and a judgment against defendant nil dicit. Manville v. Parks, 7 Colo. 128. 7. Bouv. Law Dict. See Stewart v. Goode, 29 Ala. 476. 8. Freeman on Judg., § 7. before judgment he says that he will not further prosecute his suit as to the whole or a part of his cause of action or as to some or all of the defendants.1 A judgment of retraxit is entered against a plaintiff when after appearance and before judgment he enters upon the record that he withdraws his suit.2 A judgment of nonsuit is entered against plaintiff when he consents that judgment go against him for costs (in which case it is voluntary), or when being called he fails to appear on the trial or gives no evidence upon which a verdict could be found (in which case it is involuntary).3 A judgment of cassetur breve or billa (that the writ or bill be quashed) is a judgment rendered in favor of the party pleading in abatement to a writ or action.4 A contradictory judgment (in Louisiana) is a judgment which has been given after the parties have been heard either in support of their claims or in their defence (as distinguished from a judgment in default).5 A judgment in error is a judgment rendered by a court of error on a record sent up from an inferior court. 6 A judgment pro retorno habendo is a judgment for the return of goods.7 A judgment quod partitio fiat is the interlocutory judgment in a writ of partition directing partition to be made.8 A judgment quod partitio facto firma et stabilis in perpetuum is a judgment in partition entered after the return of the writ.9 A judgment quod computet is the interlocutory judgment in an action of account compelling defendant to account.10 A judgment misericordia was sometimes given at common law against a party for the unjust vexation occasioned by his action.11 A judgment capiatur was a judgment against defendant who was convicted in a civil action of a wrong committed vi et armis making him liable to arrest and imprisonment until a fine was paid to the king for a breach of the peace implied in his wrongful act.12 De Melioribus Damnis.-Where, in an action against several persons for a joint tort, the jury by mistake sever the damages by giving heavier damages against one defendant than against the 296; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. IOS. 1. Freeman on Judg., § 7. 2. Bouv. Law Dict. See also Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108. "A retraxit differs from a nonsuit in this, one is negative and the other positive. The nonsuit is a mere default or neglect of the plaintiff, and therefore he is allowed, to bring his suit again upon payment of costs; but a retraxit is an open voluntary renunciation of his claim in court, and by this he forever loses his action." 3 Black. Com. others, the plaintiff may cure the defect by taking judgment for the greater damages (de melioribus damnis) against that defendant and entering a nolle prosequi against the others.1 A judgment in personam is one given where the proceedings are against the person and are of such a nature as to bind only the parties and their privies in blood and estate.2 A judgment in rem is a judgment against some person or thing upon the status of the person or the nature and condition of the thing equally binding on all persons.3 2. Distinction Between Decrees and Judgments.-Whatever difference between a decree in equity and a judgment at law may eventually survive the modern assimilation of the two systems, the chief original distinction was that the first was pronounced by a court of equity and the second by a court of law. This fact has been referred to under another title, and is further explained in the notes.5 3. Final Judgments. Final judgments and decrees within the meaning of the acts of congress giving the Supreme Court of the United States power to review final judgments and decrees of inferior courts have been treated under another title. In like manner what are and what are not final decrees have already been set out. There is thus reserved for treatment here final judgments within the State statutes regulating the review by higher courts of the judgments of inferior courts.8 As a general rule, the statutes of the United States, and also of the several States, provide for appeals from final judgments and decrees only of subordinate courts. The same rule obtained at common law.9 A final judgment is one which determines the rights of the parties in the suit or a distinct and definite branch of it, and reserves no further question or direction for future determination,1 1. Rap. & L. Law Dict. 2. See Freeman on Judg.(3rd ed.),§13. 3. See Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), §§ 13, 606-612; Bouv. Law Dict., title In rem; 2 Ph. Ev. 5, subtitle In rem, infra, this title. 4. See DECREES, vol 5, p. 371. 5. "The chief differences between decrees in equity and judgments at common law are as follows: The former are pronounced by courts of equity, the latter by courts of law. The former result from an investigation and determination of the rights of the parties, by the means provided and according to the principles recognized in equity jurisprudence; the latter result from an investigation and determination made by the more limited means and more inflexible rules of the common law. The former may be adjusted to all the varieties of interest and of cir 10 cumstance, and may contain such directions as are needed to carry them into effect, both in letter and in spirit; the latter are in an invariable form, general in terms and absolute for plaintiff or defendant; and the former often enforce rights not recognized by the common law, and which, without the aid of courts of equity, could be enforced only by the consciences of men." Freeman on Judgments (3rd ed.), § 9. 6. See FINAL JUDGMENTS, Vol. 7, p. 966. 7. See DECREES, vol. 5, p. 373. 8. See also APPEAL, vol. 1, p. 617; ERROR, vol. 6, pp. 813-843; INTERLOCUTORY, vol. 11, p. 427. 9. Samuel v. Judin, 6 East 333; 1 N. R. 43; Mayor v. Gee, 14 M. & W. 470; Scott v. Bennett, 5 L. R., H. L. Cas. 234; Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 16. 10. See Leese v. Sherwood, 21 Cal. JUDGMENTS. Final Judgments. except such as may be necessary to carry it into effect; but a judgment may be final though it does not determine the rights of the parties, if it ends the particular suit. An interlocutory judgment is one which does not dispose of the suit, but reserves some further question or direction for future determination.2 As a general rule, a judgment is not considered final which settles part only of several issues of law or fact.3 Generally a judgment which determines the rights of some of the parties to the action is not final within the statutes governing appeals unless it settles the rights of all defendants; but where it settles the rights of some parties whose interests are not at all connected with the others and directs the payment of costs as to them, it is final. A judgment in a criminal case is generally not 151; Dowling v. Polack, 18 Cal. 625; Chicago L. Ins. Co. v. Auditor, 100 Ill. 478; Myers v. Manny, 63 Ill. 211; Hayes v. Caldwell, 5 Gilm. (Ill.) 33; Maysville etc. R. Co. v. Punnett, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 47; Stebbins v. Niles, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 307; Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 505; s. c., 56 Am. Dec. 762; Smith v. Sahler, 1 Neb. 310; Perkins v. Sierra Nevada etc. Co., 10 Nev. 495; State v. Logan, 1 Nev. 509; Morris v. Morange, 38 N. Y. 172; Feaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511; s. c., 59 Am. Dec. 634; Linn v. Arambould, 55 Tex. 611; Dunlap v. Hunter, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) ΙΟΙ. 1. Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 16; Belt v. Davis, I Cal. 134; Klink v. Str. Cusseta, 30 Ga. 504; Helm v. Short, 7 Bush (Ky.) 623; Ludlow v. Kidd, 3 Ohio 541. 2. State Bank v. Roddy, 15 Ark. 401; Bond v. Marx, 53 Ala. 177; Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616; Dusing v. Nelson, 7 Col. 184; Hunter v. Hunter, 100 Ill. 519; Tinley v. Martin, So Ky. 463; Lewis v. Outton, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 453; Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 505; s. c., 56 Am. Dec. 762; Hazlehurst v. Morris, 28 Md. 67; Boteler v. State, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 109; Cook v. Bay, 4 How. (Miss.) 485; Smith v. Sahler, 1 Neb. 310; Lake v. King, 16 Nev. 215; Johnson v. Everett, 9 Pai. (N. Y.) 636; Tompkins v. Hyatt, 19 N. Y. 534; Harris v. Clark, 4 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 78; Cruger v. Douglass, 2 N. Y. 571; s. c., 4 How. Pr. 215; Chittenden v. Missionary Society, 8 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 327; Goodbread v. Wells, 4 Dev. & B. L. (N. Car.) 271; Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511; s. c., 59 Am. Dec. 634. 3. Freeman on Judg.(3rd ed.),§§ 20, 34; King v. Stafford, 5 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 30; Bentley v. Jones, 4 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 335; N. Car. University v. State Bank, circumstances Freeman on Judg. (3rd 657; Merle v. Andrews, 4 Tex. 200; Stoed.), § 35; Merrill v. Merrill, 92N. Car. vall v. Banks, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. (U. S.) 201; Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. (U. S.) 650. See also Cannon v. Hemphill, 7 Tex.. Compare Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex. 614. 184. Peck v. Vandenberg, 30 Cal. 11; Gates 4. Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 28; Ayres, 117 Ill. 558; Hoffman etc. Co. v. v. Salmon, 28 Cal. 320; Hutchinson v. Haxton etc. Co., 18 Ill. App. 484; Chittenden v. M. E. Church, S How. Pr. (N. Y.) 327; Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex. 614; Wills v. State, 4 Tex. App. 613; rigues v. Trevino, 54 Tex. 198; Delap Simpson v. Bennett, 42 Tex. 241; Rodv. Hunter, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 101; Har751; Hume v. Commercial Bank, 1 Lea rison v. Farnsworth, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) (Tenn.) 220; Hunter v. Gardenhire, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 87. 5. Royall v. Johnson, 1 Rand. (Va.) 421. |