Case Name: Florence Hunt et al. v. Emma Mounts et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Jurisdiction: West Virginia
Decision Date: 1924-04-01
Citations: 96 W. Va. 143
Docket Number: 
Parties: Florence Hunt et al. v. Emma Mounts et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West Virginia Supreme Court
Volume: 96
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
CHARLESTON.
Florence Hunt et al. v. Emma Mounts et al.
Submitted March 25, 1924.
Decided April 1, 1924.
Appeal aito Eirbob.- — ■Appellate Court Without Jurisdiction to Review Judgment for Costs Only.
■Where on the trial of an action a demurrer to the evidence is -sustained, and the court does not render a judgment, of nil capiat, hut only for costs, there is no final judgment, and the appellate court is without jurisdiction to review the case.
McGinnis, Judge, absent.
Error to Circuit Court, Mingo- County.
Action by Florence Hunt and others against Emma Mounts and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs bring error.
Dismissed, as improvidently awarded.
Stafford & Rhodes, for plaintiffs in error.
Gooclyhoontz, Seherr & Slaven, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Miller, Judge:
Upon the trial of this action in ejectment, defendants interposed a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence. On the conditional verdict of the jury, the court entered the following order: "And the matters of law arising upon the de f endants ' demurrer to the evidence in this case being argued by counsel and considered by the court, the court is of opinion that the law thereon is for the defendants. It is therefore considered that the law of the case is with the defendants. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendants recover of and from the plaintiffs their costs in this behalf expended."
Defendants in error have filed in this court their motion to dismiss the writ of error as having been improvidently awarded. The record does not show that any final judgment was rendered in the ease. The judgment is for costs only. Upon finding that the law was for defendants, the court should have entered a judgment of nil capiat. On the authority of Kirk v. Camden Interstate Railway Company, 66 W. Va. 486, and Bower v. Virginian Railway Company, 68 W. Va. 629, and the-numerous eases cited therein, the writ of error awarded in this case must be dismissed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Dismissed, as improvidently awarded.