
    A. J. THOMPSON v. WILLIAM BULLARD’S LESSEE.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 91-92.)
    Nashville,
    December Term, 1851.
    PRACTICE. Remittitur may be entered in ejectment.
    Where the verdict in ejectment is for more land than the plaintiff is entitled to recover, a remittitur is authorized, but it should be entered of record, and the court should pronounce judgment accordingly. [A remittitur cannot be entered in the circuit court so as to give jurisdiction where a justice’s judgment is void, because it exceeds his jurisdiction. Notes 13-16 under sec. 5936 of the Code. The remittitur should be entered before the justice, and judgment taken for amount within his jurisdiction. Code, see. 5974. An appellant should withdraw his appeal after a remittitur is entered remitting- the excess complained of, and on account of which the appeal was taken. Tlieavenoug-ht v. Hardeman, 4 Yer., 565, 566. Remittitur in an action of tort for damages. Branch v. Bass, 5 Sneed, 366; Railroad v. Jones, 9 Heis., 27. On proposal of the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered, the supreme court may enter a remittitur, and render judgment for the balance. Fowlkes v. Webber, 8 Hum., 530, 534; McKinley v. Beasley, 5 Sneed, 170, 171; Campbell v. Hancock, 7 Hum., 75. 76; Crabb v. Bank, G Yer., 332, 333.]
    Ejectment from tbe circuit court of Claiborne county.
    Sneed, Peck and William M. Cocke for tbe plaintiff in error.
    Maynard and TTeiskell for the defendant in error.
    In this case there was a verdict for the plaintiff for a greater amount of land than, according to his own admissions, ho had a right to recover. Whereupon, it seems, the defendant moved the court for a new trial, which upon the proposal of the plaintiff not to take possession of the part of said land to which he was not entitled, was refused.
    Afterwards, on the plaintiff’s demand, the court rendered judgment in pursuance of the verdict, and awarded a writ of possession accordingly; from which judgment the defendant appealed in error to this court.
   McKinney, J.:

A remittitur in an action of ejectment is authorized, but it should have been entered of record and the court should have pronounced judgment accordingly.

To have cured the verdict, the plaintiff instead of a mere offer not to take possession, ought to have made such a release or relinquishment as would have had the proper legal efficacy of settling all controversy in future, as to so much of the land as, by the plaintiff’s admission, he had no- right to recover. Upon this point alone we reverse the judgment and award a new trial.

Judgment reversed.  