Case ID: unrep-tenn-cas_1/html/0091-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me KiNNEY -J. :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. J. Thompson v. William Bullard’s Lessee.
    PRACTICE AT LAW. — Ejeetment.—Remittiture.
    Where the judgment in ejectment is for more land than the plaintiff is entitled to recover, a remittitur may well he entered; but it should appear of record, and judgment should be pronounced accordingly.
    Ejectmment from the Circuit Court of Claiborne County.
    Sneed, Peck and William M. Cocke for the plaintiff in error.
    Maynard and Heiskell for the Defendant in error.
    In this case there was a verdict for the plaintiff for a greater amount of land than, according to his own admissions, he had a right to recover.. Whereupon, it seems, the defendant moved the court for a new trial, which upon the proposal of the plaintiff not to take possession of the part of said land to which he was not entitled, was refused.
    Afterwards on the plaintiff’s demand the court rendered judgment in pursuance of the verdict, and awarded a writ of possession accordingly; from which judgment the defendant appealed in error to this Court.
   Me KiNNEY -J. :

A remittitur in an action of ejectment is authorized, but it should have been entered of record and the court should have pronounced judgment accordingly.

To have cured the verdict, the plaintiff instead of a mere offer not to take possession, ought to have made such a release or relinquishment as would have had the proper legal ■efficacy of settling all controversy in future, as to so much of the land as, by the plaintiff’s admission, he had no right to recover. Upon this point alone we reverse the judgment and award a new trial. Judgment reversed. 
      
      (1) A party appealing on account of excessive, judgment, should withdraw the appeal after remittitur entered, remitting the excess complained of. Theavenought v. Hardeman, 4 Yerg. 565.
      
        Remittitur in torts and action ex contractu. Branch v. Bass, 5 Sneed, 366. Remittitur in the Supreme Court. Fawkles v. Webber, 8 Humph. 530; Campbell v. Hancock, 7 Humph. 75; Crabb v. Nashville Bank, 6 Yerg. 332; McKinley v. Beasley, 5 Sneed, 170.
      A remittitur in the Circuit Court will not cure a justices judgment which was in excess of his jurisdiction, such a judgment being void. Dixon v. Caruthers 9 Yerg. 30.