Case ID: tex_9/html/0131-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lipscomb, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

T. J. Chambers v. J. Fisk and Others.
    Whero several defendants in an action to recover land, stay waste, and for a discovery sever in their defense, presenting different defenses, there should be distinct judgments; and, on appeal, an appeal bond should be given for each judgment, otherwise the appeal will be dismissed.
    Appeal from Travis. This suit was brought against forty-six individuals, to recover laud, to stay waste, and for a discovery. Many of them holding by different tenures, and some of them claiming to hold in good faith, if not by the best title, set up a claim for improvements, and there would have been different judgments, as various, almost, as the defenses set up. Under such circumstances three sets of the defendants asked for and obtained leave to sever from the others in their defense. Each of these three was presented separately to the jury, and three distinct verdicts were returned, on which there were three different judgments, or a judgment on each verdict. The plaintiff appealed and gave but one bond, consolidating the cases in his bond. A motion w'as submitted by the appellees to dismiss the appeal for want of a legal bond under the statute.
    
      W. 8. Oldham, for appellant.
    
      A. J. Hamilton, for appellees.
   Lipscomb, J.

It seems to us that the record presents three different cases, and as such we are bound to consider them. In actions for damages for a trespass it is not uncommon for the defendants to sever in their pleading, and some of them may not defend at all; ahd in cases of joint promissors some of them may not plead, or plead different from the others: in all such cases there should be but one final judgment. But in a suit like the present there must be a distinction, as they, the defendants, would not be jointly liable, and the final judgment could not be joint. IVe therefore believe that there should have been a bond for each judgment appealed from, and that a bond embracing the different judgments is not a compliance with the statute that requires the appellant, in all cases, to give an appeal bond, and, consequently, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.

Appeal dismissed.