Court Opinion

ID: 9827369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:27:18.495197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:29.719797
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[9] Appellants contend that the judgment should be reversed on the ground of fundamental error, in that it is against Telesforo Gonzales, instead of Telesforo Martinez. It is apparent that the variance was caused by a mere clerical error, for the court finds that F. A. Chapa and Telesforo Martinez executed the replevy bond, and the bond is copied in the judgment, and then finds that plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Maria Gonzales as principal and F. A. Chapa and Telesforo Martinez as sureties. The recovery of the amount found by the jury is then awarded, and in doing so, instead of writing Telesforo Martinez, the name is written “Telesforo Gonzales.” The court then finds that the sureties, Chapa and Telesforo Martinez, became active defendants on November 20, 1916, but in the award of costs against them from such date the name, Telesforo Gonzales, is again used instead of Telesforo Martinez. There was no party to the suit by the name of Telesforo Gonzales, and Telesforo Martinez appealed from the judgment. Clerical mistakes of this character can be corrected by the appellate court. Robinson v. Moore, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 93, 20 S. W. 994. The mistakes with regard to the name will be corrected, and the judgment in that respect reformed by this court.
[10,11] Fundamental error is also predicated on the failure of the court to find the value of each article separately. The judgment by approving the verdict of the jury establishes the value of each article as found by the jury, and such value is shown by the verdict copied in the judgment. This is a sufficient compliance with the statute, especially when considered in connection with the provision in the judgment authorizing the return of the property, “or any portion thereof described in the verdict,” and directing the sheriff to receive same and receipt therefor and to deliver same to the plaintiff, and that the clerk should enter a credit upon the judgment for the value of the property so returned. The sureties were amply protected by the judgment in their right to return the property, but if they were not, as the jury found the value of each item, there could be no objection to the correction of the judgment by this court so as to protect them in such right. This court has hereto*854fore held, however, that the failure to find the value of each item is not a fundamental error. Owens v. Vander Stucken, 133 S. W. 491.
We see no reason for changing our views with respect to the disposition of the assignments of error. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Appellees have filed a motion for certiorari to bring up a corrected judgment? the corrections made by us as to the name of Teles-foro Martinez having also been made in the trial court since we affirmed the judgment. The motion will be denied, as we deem it-wholly unnecessary to pursue that course.