Lloyd v. Brinck

Citations

• 35 Tex. 1

Syllabus

<p>1. District judges have great legal discretion in all causes tried before them, and should exercise it to the end that the laws may be enforced, and justice and equity be administered to all; but that discretion is a sound and legal discretion, and to be exercised in compliance with known roles and principles of law. That discretion is not the mere arbitrary will and pleasure of the judge.</p> <p>2. When a jury renders a verdict in proper form, and responsive to the issues presented by the pleadings and submitted to them by the court, no discretionary power is vested in the court to set that verdict aside upon its own motion, notwithstanding the verdict maybe against the weight of the evidence, or in disregard of the instructions of the court; but the party aggrieved may, by his motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment, call forth the judicial power of the court to prevent wrong and secure the administration of the law.</p> <p>3. The entry of judgment upon a valid verdict involves no judicial or discretionary powers, but is simply a ministerial act; and to enforce its performance by the District Court, the writ of mandamus will issue from the Supreme Court in a proper case.</p> <p>4. In an action of debt, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and for a specified amount. The court below received the verdict, but immediately, and of its own motion, set it aside and granted a new trial. On a subsequent day of the same term, the plaintiff moved for judgment in accordance with the verdict; which motion was overruled. Held,, that the case is one in which an appeal is not an adequate remedy ; and therefore the writ of mandamus is awarded by this court to compel the court below to enter judgment upon the verdict.</p>