Case Name: Wesley Morrison v. John Van Bibber
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 153
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wesley Morrison v. John Van Bibber.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
Wesley Morrison v. John Van Bibber.
In a suit to foreclose a mortgage the defendant made default, and upon writ of inquiry the jury returned a verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff the amount of the note sued on, and that the note is the same as described in the mortgageHeld, that the judgment for the amount and foreclosure was correct. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1508, Note 594.)
There was no necessity of a writ of inquiry.
Error from Gonzales. The case was tried before Hon. Fielding Jones, one of the district judges.
Van Bibber sued Morrison and declared on a note and mortgage, and prayed for a foreclosure. The defendant made default, and there was a writ of inquiry and verdict and judgment. In the petition for a writ of error there is reference to the assignment of errors, marked “A,” but there was none in the record. The defendant in error suggested delay, which opened the whole record.
Parker £ Miller, for the plaintiff in error.
—The execution of mortgage as well as note was in issue.
The jury did not find upon the mortgage; they only found in regard to the note.
The court, of its own motion, rendered judgment upon the mortgage. (May v. Taylor, 22 Tex., 349.)
The charge was contrary to the law. The court did not submit all the issues to the jury. It did not conform to the pleadings. (Sayles’ Prac., sec. 547.)
Harwood, for defendant, suggested delay.

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—This suit was founded on the note and mortgage. The defendant below having been served with process, and failing to appear and answer, a judgment by default was taken, a writ of inquiry awarded, and the jury returned their verdict: "We, the jury, find for the plain tiff the amount of the note sued on, and that the note is the same as described in the mortgage." Upon which a judgment was rendered for the amount of the note, and foreclosure of the mortgage.
The default determined the facts alleged in favor of the 'plaintiff; and, as there were no unliquidated damages to be assessed, there was really no need for a writ of inquiry. This case is therefore entirely unlike the ease of May v. Taylor, 22 Tex. 349, in which there was an issue made up, and a regular trial of the cause by both parties before the court and jury.
The judgment is correct, and is affirmed with damages.
Judgment aeeirmed with damages.