
    [No. 1564.]
    Jesus Galindo et als. v. The State.
    Scire Facias—Judgment Nisi, which fails to specify the amount of money for which the judgment is rendered, both against the principal obligor and the sureties, though in other respects it comply strictly with the requirements of law, is insufficient as a judgment nisi, and will not support a judgment final on a forfeited bail bond.
    Appeal from the District Court of Webb. Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Russell.
    
      Opinion delivered January 19, 1884.
    This appeal is prosecuted by Justo Guerro and Florencio Guerro from a final judgment entered against them as the sureties of Jesus Galindo, bailed upon an indictment charging him, the said Galindo, with the theft of amare. The amount of the bond and judgment was five hundred dollars. The opinion otherwise discloses the case.
    
      Hall & Watkins, for the appellants. •
    
      J. H. Burts, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   Willson, Judge.

Although the judgment nisi is in literal compliance with Article 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, still it is insufficient to support the judgment final, because it does not specify the amount adjudged against the defendants. This precise question has been determined by our Supreme Court in the case of The State v. Cox, 25 Texas, 404, where it is is said that “the amount of money for which the judgment is rendered against both the principal obligor and the sureties should be specified in the judgment nisi ”

In view of that decision, the judgment nisi in this case is not a valid one, and the judgment final thereon cannot stand; wherefore it is reversed and the cause is remanded for such further proceedings as may be proper.

Reversed and remanded.  