Case ID: tex_4/html/0170-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wheeler, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harris v. Williams.
    Where a party seeks the enforcement of so rigorous a rule as the affirmance of a judgment; without reference to the merits, liis application must ccme within the peremptory demand of the statute. (Note 72.)
    Where the transcript was tiled by the defendant in error, who moved for an affirmance of the judgment without regard to the merits, there being no indorsement upon the transcript, as required by the statute, the motion was refused, the writ of error dismissed, and the defendant in error condemned to pay the costs.
    Note 72.—Harris v. Williams, ante, 320.
    Error from Bowie. The defendant in error recovered a judgment against the plaintiff in error at the Pall Term of die District Court now last past." The plaintiff obtained a writ of error returnable to this court. On the ‘¿3d day of Jammy, in the present term, being after the expiration of the time within which the appellant is permitted to file the record, the appellee filed it, and now moves for an affirmance of the judgment, under the act of 1848, (p. 74, see. 4,) without reference to the merits. This motion the plaintiff in error resists, and moves to dismiss the writ of error for the want of a perfect record, the clerk having omitted to indorse thereon the day on which, it was demanded and on which it was delivered, as required by the act of 1840, (p. 400, see. 139.)
    
      Ellett, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Morrill, for defendant in error.
   Wheeler, J.

Where a party seeks the enforcement of so rigorous a rule as the affirmance of a judgment without reference to the merits, his application ought certainly to receive no favor beyond what the rule of the law may seem peremptorily to demand. lie ought to be held to an exact compliance with tiie law in every particular. lie demands the enforcement of the rigid rule, regardless of the right and justice of the case, and he cannot complain if the same principle which lie invokes is applied to his own case. lie ought himself to be held to strict compliance with the very letter of the law which he seeks to enforce.

Such a compliance is not shown in the present case. There is not the in-dorsement upon the transcript required by the statute. Wo are of opinion, therefore, that the motion to affirm be refused, and that the writ of error be dismissed, at the costs of the defendant in error.

Ordered accordingly.