Opinion
Appeal from the Fifth District.
Suit against eight defendants, one of whom was Laforge, known as The Table Mountain Water Company, for possession of a ditch.
The verdict was--" We the jury find for plaintiff and against A. B. Laforge." Upon this verdict the judgment was, that plaintiff recover the possession of the ditch, without stating of whom the possession was to be recovered. The judgment then goes on, " that said defendant * * * surrender possession of," etc., and that plaintiff " recover of A. B. Laforge, one of said defendants, the sum of one hundred and seventeen dollars, his costs and disbursements."
Defendants appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
COUNSEL
Robinson, Beatty & Heacock, for Appellants, made the point that the judgment does not conform to the verdict in this, that while the verdict is against Laforge only, the judgment is absolute for the property, and affects the rights of all the parties--the complaint and answer showing all to be in possession.
Thos. Sunderland, for Respondent, said: 1st. The judgment is against Laforge only, and therefore follows the verdict. 2d. If the judgment be against the other defendants, they cannot complain, becausethe error is clerical, and they failed to move to correct it in the Court below.
JUDGES: Cope, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Baldwin, J., and Field, C. J., concurring.
OPINION
COPE, Judge
The judgment in this case must be construed by the verdict, which is confined to the plaintiff and the defendant, Laforge. We see no error in the record.
Judgment affirmed.