
    Gallinger v. Vale, Adm’r.
    When the decision on the facts rests in the same mind which pronounces the judgment of the law upon the facts, the final judgment of the law is all that need he expressed in the record of tlie court, unless the court is requested, under section 1793 of the Code, to state the facts found and the conclusions thereon, in writing.
    A judgment entry as follows : “ On this day came the plaintiff, hy H. H. Runnels, his attorney, and the defendant, by F. Semple, his attorney, and submitted this cause to the court; and the court being fully satisfied in the premises, it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of 1 the court below be reversed, and the plaintiff pay the costs herein. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that- the defendant, John Vale, Executor, &c,, have and recover of the plaintiff and his surety, &c., the costs of this suit, taxed at -,” is sufficiently regular and certain upon its face.
    
      Appeal from the Lee District Cowrt.
    
    Tuesday, June 22.
    Tlie plaintiff filed in the county court a claim”against the deceased, Tomlinson, amounting to $596, for personal property sold him in his life time, of which a bill of particulars is filed. The county judge found due the plaintiff the sum of $110, with costs, at the May session, 1857. The administrator appealed to the district court. In the district court there was an agreement signed by the counsel on both sides, that they “agree to submit the above cause to the Hon. Judge Claggett, after argument by counsel, on the following state of facts.” Then follows a statement of facts — a receipt offered by one of the parties— and two agreements relative to taking the depositions of certain witnesses, which depositions are included in the transcript, and which agreements are dated June 8, 1857. Then comes the following judgment: “ On this day came the plaintiff, by H. H. Runnels, his attorney, and the defendant, by E. Semple, his attorney, and submitted this cause to the court; and the court being fully satisfied in the premises, it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court below be reversed, and the plaintiff pay the costs herein. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendant, John Yale, executor, &c., have and recover of the plaintiff and his surety, &c., the costs of this suit,” &c. The plaintiff appeals, and assigns for error the following:
    I. The court erred in reversing the judgment of the county court; 2. That the district court had no authority to reverse the said judgment upon an appeal; 3. That the court erred in rendering judgment against the plaintiff, without having found against him on the issue joined.
    
      J. M. JBscJe, for the appellant.
    
      F. Senyple, for the appellee.
   Woodward, J.

— The plaintiff claims that this record shows that the court did not try the cause anew on its merits, as should be done on an appeal, but that they decided it upon some matter of law, and that this was error. There is no bill of exceptions, nor other paper, nor any entry of record, showing a request for a trial, and a refusal by the court; nor is there anything explaining the proceedings farther than above set forth. But the plaintiff ■urges that “ the record shows error, in not stating that the issue was tried,' and that upon that issue a finding was had for the defendantand that the term reversed” has a technical signification, applied to the hearing on the law only.

It appears to us that this record and entry is sufficiently certain and regular, until something more definite is shown against it. It contains and expresses the legal conclusion and result, after a hearing. The court tried the cause in the place of a jury. They were not requested to express their finding on the facts, in writing, under section 1793 of the Code. We are not prepared to say, that it is essential that the record should, in such case, express that the finding is in favor of the defendant. When the jury renders a verdict, that fact appears necessarily, from the fact that the jury is a separate body. But in the present instance, the record entry is just what it would be after the rendition of the verdict of the jury — it is the judgment of the law upon the facts; and when the decision on the facts, rests in the same mind which pronounces the judgment of the law upon the facts, the final judgment of the law is all that need be expressed, unless a request be made under section 1793 of the Code.

We cannot say that there is anything in this record, which would warrant the court in saying, that the cause was not heard on its merits. If the party claimed a trial, and it was refused, a bill of exceptions was the proper method of showing this. It is true, that this judgment is not entered up in the usual and better form, and it is possible that it may amount only to a judgment of non-suit, but this forms no question before us. It is a sufficient final judgment in the cause.

Judgment affirmed.  