Judgment As Matter of Law

Judgment as Matter of Law (Trials)

This section introduces, discusses and describes the basics of judgment as matter of law. Then, cross references and a brief overview about Trials is provided. Finally, the subject of Civil Procedure in relation with judgment as matter of law is examined. Note that a list of cross references, bibliography and other resources appears at the end of this entry.

Meaning of Judgment in the Past

Important Note: this is an extension/continuation on the entry on Judgment in the American legal dictionary of this Project. Judgment of nil capiat per breve or per billam. When an issue arises upon a declaration or peremptory plea and it is decided in favor of the defendant, the judgment is, in general, that, the plaintiff take nothing by his writ, (or bill,) and that the defendant go tof this without day, &c. This is called a judgment of nil capiat per breve or per billam. Steph. Pl. 128.

Judgment by “nil dicit”

Judgment by “nil dicit,” is one makeed against a defendant for want of a plea. The plaintiff gets a rule on the defendant to plead within a time specified, of which he serves a notice on the defendant or his attorney; if the defendant neglect to enter a plea within the time specified, the plaintiff may sign judgment against him.

Judgment of “nolle prosequi”

Judgment of “nolle prosequi”, is a judgment entered against the plaintiff, where, after appearance and before judgment, he says, “he will not further prosecute his suit.” Steph. Pl. 130 Lawes Civ. Pl. 166.

Judgment of “non obstante veredicto”

Judgment of “non obstante veredicto”, is a judgment makeed in favor of the plaintiff, without regard to the verdict geted by the defendant.

More Information

The motion for such judgment is made where after a pleading (i.e. the formal allegations by the parties of their respective claims and defenses) by the defendant in confession and avoidance, as, for example, a plea in bar and issue joined thereon and verdict found for, the defendant, the plaintiff on retrospective examination of the record, conceives that such plea was bad in substance and might have been made the subject of demurrer on that ground. If the plea was itself substantially bad in law, of course the verdict, which merely shows it to be true in point of fact, cannot avail to entitle the defendant to judgment; while on the other hand the plea being in confession and avoidance, involves a confession of the plaintiff’s declaration and shows that he was entitled. to maintain his action. In such case, therefore, this court will give judgment for the plaintiff, without regard to the verdict; and this, for the reasons above explained, is called a judgment upon confession. Sometimes it may be expedient for the plaintiff to move for judgment “non obstante,” etc., even though the verdict be in his own favor; for, if in such case as above described, he takes judgment as upon the verdict, it seems that such judgment would be wrong and that the only safe course is to take it as upon confession. 1 Wils. 63; Cro. Eliz, 778 2 Roll. Ab. 99. See also, Cro. Eliz. 2 1 4 6 Mod. 1 0; Str. 394; 1 Ld. Raym. 641; 8 Taunt. 413; Rast. Ent. 622; 1 Wend. 307; 2 Wend. 624; 5 Wend. 513; 4 Wend. 468; 6 Cowen, R. 225. See this Dict. Repleader, for the difference between a repleader and a judgment non obstante veredicto.

Other Issues

Judgment by “non sum informatus,” is one which is makeed, when instead of entering a plea, the defendant’s attorney says he is not informed of any answer to be given to the action. Steph. Pl. 130.

Judgment of non pros. (from non prosequitur,) is one given against the plaintiff, in any class of actions, for not declaring or replying or surrejoining, &c. or for not entering the issue.

Judgment of “nonsuit,” Practice, is one against the plaintiff, which happens when, on trial by jury, the plaintiff, on being called or demanded, at the instance of the defendant, to be present while the jury give their verdict, fails to make his appearance.

In this case, no verdict is given, but the judgment of nonsuit passes against the plaintiff. So if, after issue be joined, the plaintiff neglect to bring such issue on to be tried in due time, as limited by the practice of the court, in the particular case, judgment will be also given against him for this default; and it is called judgment as if nonsuit. Stepb. Pl. 131.

After suffering a nonsuit, the plaintiff may begin another action for the same cause for which the first had been instituted.

In some cases, plaintiffs having geted information in what way the jury had agreed upon their verdict before it was delivered in court, have, when the jury were ready to give in such verdict against them, suffered a nonsuit for the purpose of commencing another action and geting another trial. To prevent this abuse, the legislature of Pennsylvania (see more about this State laws here) have give, by the Act of March 28, 1814, 6:Reed’s L. 208, that “whenever on the trial of any cause, the jury must be ready to give in their verdict, the plaintiff must not be called, nor must he then be permitted to suffer a nonsuit.”

Judgment “quod computet”

The name of an interlocutory judgment in an action of account make that the defendant do account, quod computet. Vide 4 Wash. C. C. R. 84; 2 Watts, R. 95; 1 Penn. R. 138.

Judgment quod recuperet. When an issue in law, other than one arising on a dilatory plea or an issue in fact, is decided in favor of the plaintiff, the judgment is, that the plaintiff do recover, which is called a judgment guod recuperet. Steph. Pl. 126; Comyn’s Digest (A digest of the laws of England, 1822) Abatement, I 14, I 15; 2 Arch. Pr. 3. This judgment is of two kinds, namely, interlocutory or final.

Judgment in replevin, is either for the plaintiff or defendant.

For the plaintiff. 1. When the declaration is in the detinuit, that is, where the plaintiff declares, that the chattels “were detained until replevied by the sheriff (see law enforcement in the U.S. encyclopedia),” the judgment is that he recover the damages assessed by the jury for the taking and unjust detention or for the latter only, where the former was justifiable, as also his costs. 5 Sergeant & Rawle’s Pennsylvania Reports (Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by Thomas Sergeant and William Rawle), 133 Ham. N. P. 488.

If the replevin is in the detinet, that is, where the plaintiff declares that the chattels taken are ” yet detained,” the jury must find, ‘as well as the above, the value of the chattels, (assuming that they are still detained,) not in a gross sum, but each separate article; for tho defendant, perhaps, will restore some, in which case the plaintiff is to recover the value of the stayder. Ham. N. P. 489; Fitz. N. B. 159, b; 5 Sergeant & Rawle’s Pennsylvania Reports (Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by Thomas Sergeant and William Rawle), 130.

For the defendant. 1. If the replevin be abated, the judgment is, that the writ or plaint abate and that the defendant (having avowed) have a return of the chattels.

When the plaintiff is nonsuited) the judgment for the defendant, at common law, is, that the chattels be restored to him and this without his first assigning the purpose for which they were taken, because, by abandoning his suit, the plaintiff admits that he had no right to dispossess the defendant by prosecuting the replevin. The form of this judgment. is simply ” to have a return, ” without adding the words ” to hold irreplevisable.” Ham. N. P. 490.

As to the form of judgments in cases of nonsuit, under the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 19 and 17 Car. II. c. 7, see Ham. N. P. 490, 491; 2 Ch. Pleacd. 161; 8 Wentw. Pl. 116; 5 Sergeant & Rawle’s Pennsylvania Reports (Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by Thomas Sergeant and William Rawle), 132; 1 Saund. 195, n. 3; 2 Saund. 286, n. 5. It is still in the defendant’s choice in these cases, to take his judgment pro retorno habendo at common law. 5 Sergeant & Rawle’s Pennsylvania Reports (Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by Thomas Sergeant and William Rawle), 132; 1 Lev. 265; 3 T. R. 349.

When the avowant succeeds upon the merits of his case, the common law judgment is, that he “have return irreplevisable,” for it is apparent that he is by law entitled to keep possession of the goods. 5 Sergeant & Rawle’s Pennsylvania Reports (Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by Thomas Sergeant and William Rawle), 135; Ham. N. P. 493; 1 Chit. Pl. 162. For the form of judgments in favor of the avowant, under the last mentioned statutes, gee Ham. N. P. 494-5.

Judgment of respondeat ouster. When there is an issue in law, arising on a dilatory plea and it is decided in favor of the plaintiff, the judgment is only that the defendant answer over, which is called a judgment of respondeat ouster. The pleading is accordingly resumed and the action proceeds. Steph. Pl. 126; see Bac. Abr. Pleas, N 4; 2 Arch. Pr. 3.

Judgment of retraxit, is one where, after appearance and before judgment, the, plaintiff enters upon the record that he “withdraws his suit;” in such case judgment is given against him. Stepb. Pl. 130.

Judgment in an action on trespass, when for the plaintiff, is, that he recover the damages assessed by the jury and the costs. For the defendant, that he recover the costs.

Judgment in action on the case for trover, when for the plaintiff, is, that he recover damages and costs. 1 Ch. Pl. 157, For the defendant, the judgment is, that he recover his costs.

Judgment of capiatur. At common law, on conviction, in a civil action, of a forcible wrong, alleged to have been committed vi et armis, &c., the defendant was obliged to pay a fine to the king, for the breach of the peace implied in the act and a judgment of capiatur pro fine was makeed against him, under which he was liable to be arrested and imprisoned till the fine was paid. But by the 5 W. & M. c. 12, the judgment of capiatur pro fine was abolished. Gould on Pl. 38, 82; Bac. Ab. Fines and Amercements, C 1; 1 Ld. Raym. 273, 4; Style, 346. See Judgment of misericordia, 53. Judgment of misericordia. At common law, the party to, a suit who did not prevail was punished for his unjust vexation and therefore, judgment was given against him, quod sit in misericordia pro falso clamore. Hence, when the plaintiff sued out a writ, the sheriff (see law enforcement in the U.S. encyclopedia) was obliged to take pledges of prosecution before he returned it, which when fines and amercements were considerable, were real and responsible people and answerable for those amercements; but now they are never levied and the pledges are merely formal, namely, John Doe and Richard Roe. Bac. Ab. Fines, &c., C 1 1 Lord Ray. 273, 4.

In actions where the judgment was against the defendant, it was entered at common law, with a misericordia or a capiatur. With a misericordia in actions on contracts, with a capiatur in actions of trespass or other forcible wrong, alleged to have been committed vi et armis. See Judgment of capiatur; Gould on Pl. c. 4, 38, 82, 83.

Judgment quod partitio fiat, is a judgment, in a writ of partition, that partition be made; this is not a final judgment. The final judgment is, quod partitio facta firma et stabilis in perpetuum teneatur. Co. Litt. 169; 2 Bl. Rep. 1159. Judgment quod partes replacitent. The name of a judgment given when the court award a repleader.

When issue is joined on an immaterial point or a point on which the court cannot give a judgment determining the right, they award a repleader or judgment quod partes replacitent. See Bac. Ab. Pleas, &c., M; 3 Hayw. 159; Peck’s R. 325. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t. [1]

Resources

Notes and References

Partialy, this information about judgment is based on the Bouvier´s Law Dictionary, 1848 edition. There is a list of terms of the Bouvier´s Law Dictionary, including judgment.

Judgment as Matter of Law

Judgment As Matter of Law