Court Opinion

ID: 9864604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:19:37.378777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:19.083402
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Respondents petition for a rehearing: The writ was ordered issued by reason of the fact that the copy of the docket of the justice presented to this court showed that no judgment had ever been entered by the justice, and hence it was held that the attempted appeal was prematurely taken. [5] Respondents assert, however, that the following entry was in fact made in the docket but that they deemed it unnecessary to question its sufficiency, hence its omission: “Judgment entered for $74 and costs of suit.” In deciding the case, this court assumed, of course, that the record presented was correct. However, such an entry does not constitute a judgment. Section 891 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a trial by jury "has been had judgment must be entered by the justice at once “in conformity with the verdict.” This means that it must be entered in favor of the party securing the verdict; otherwise, the judgment is meaningless. The entry does not refer to the verdict nor can it be ascertained therefrom in whose favor the justice intended to enter judgment. Section 893 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the *585judgment of the justice must be entered substantially in the form required by section 667, “ ... No judgment shall have effect for any purpose until so entered.”
Respondents have referred us to no decision upholding a judgment which fails to indicate in whose favor it was rendered or entered; on the other hand, the authorities, which we have examined, hold that such a judgment is void for uncertainty.
In volume 15, R. C. L., section 29, it is said: “It is a fundamental rule that the form of a judgment should be such as will indicate with reasonable clearness the decision which the court has rendered, and a failure to comply with this requirement will render the judgment void for uncertainty. Thus a judgment which does not show for and against whom it is entered will be void for uncertainty and if it does not show in what ease it was rendered, it will in like manner be void.” Citing the case of Ferrell v. Simmons, 63 W. Va. 45, [129 Am. St. Rep. 962, 59 S. E. 752], “A judgment not designating in whose favor it is rendered is void for uncertainty.” “The judgment must designate with certainty the party against whom it is rendered.” (11 Ency. of PI. & Pr. 949, 951.)
In Black on Judgments (second edition, volume 1, section 3), under the heading of “Essentials of a Judgment,” it is said: “And the judgment, must of course appear to be in favor of one party and against the other.”
While it is doubtless true that a judgment of the justice’s court need not be entered with all the formalities of one of the superior court, yet those things essential to constitute a judgment can no more be omitted from the one than from the other.
Section 900a of the Code of Civil Procedure seems to cover a • situation such as presented by the entry referred to by providing: 11 Said justice shall have power to set aside any void judgment upon motion of either party to the action after notice to the adverse party, and thereupon said action shall be treated as if no judgment had been entered.” Rehearing denied.