
    E. M. Smith and another v. S. Chenault.
    "In a suit upon a note and to enforce a lien upon certain machinery, the verdict was in favor of. the plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest, and “that the plaintiff have his mortgage lien upon the property described in said note.” Held, that it was error to go beyond ' the verdict and establish a lien upon sundry articles not designated in the note, but in a receipt filed in the cause by the defendant.
    Error from Jefferson. Tried below before the Hon. ■ffm. Chambers.
    The case is sufficiently indicated by the opinion.
    
      Moore & Shelley, for the plaintiffs in error,
    insisted that the verdict was too vague to support the judgment; and cited 13 Texas, 229; 19 Texas, 269; 27 Texas, 89; 29 Texas, 199; 3 Texas, 305; 15 Texas, 159; and 20 Texas, 289.
    
      W. M. Walton, for the defendant in error.
   Evans, P. J.

This was a suit on a promissory note rand to enforce a lien upon certain property, engine, boilers, and all machinery and appurtenances connected ¡therewith.

The verdict of the jury was in favor of the plaintiff ¡for the amount of the note and interest, and “that the plaintiff have his mortgage lien upon the property described in said note;” upon which verdict the court Tendered judgment for the amount of the note and interest, and decreed the foreclosure.'of the mortgage on the property described in the verdict, but also recited “the description of the property given in a certificate of sale and guaranty filed by the defendant.”

In this there was error; and it is therefore ordered, that the decree be so corrected as to conform to the verdict of the jury; and in all other respects it is affirmed.

Reformed and rendered.  