When by any direction of a supreme court of a state, an entire cause is determined, the decision, when reduced to form and entered in the records of the court, constitutes a final judgment, whatever may be its technical des ignation, and is subject to review in the su preme court of the United States; Board of Com'rs of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108, 23 L. Ed. 822 ; but when the state court remands a cause for further proceed ings in the lower court it is not a filial judg ment; McComb v. Knox County, 91 U. S. 1, 23 L. Ed. 185; Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167 ; 9 Sup. Ct. 566, 32 L. Ed. 895 ; Rice v. Sanger, 144 U. S. 197, 12 Sup. Ct. 664, 36 L. Ed. 403 ; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Osborne, 146 U. S. 354, 13 Sup. Ct. 281, 36 L. Ed. 1002. See DECREE.
3. When an issue in fact, or an issue in law arising on a peremptory plea, is deter mined for the plaintiff, the judgment is "that the plaintiff do recover," etc., which is called a judgment quod recuperet; Steph. Pl. 126; Com. Dig. Abatement (I 14, I 15) ; 2 Archb. Pr. 3. When the issue in law arises on a dil atory plea, and is determined for the plain tiff, the judgment is only that the defendant "do answer over," called a judgment of re spondeat ouster. In an action of account, judgment for the plaintiff is that the defend ant "do account," quod computet. Of these,
the last two, quod computet and quod re spondeat ouster, are interlocutory only ; the first, quod recuperet, is either final or inter locutory, according as the quantum of darn ages is or is not ascertained at the rendition of the judgment.
4. Judgment in error is either in affirmance of the former judgment ; in recall of it for error in fact ; in reversal of it for error in law; that the plaintiff be barred of his writ of error, where a plea of release of errors or of the statute of limitations is found for the defendant ; or that there be a venire facies de novo, which is an award of a new trial; Smith, Act. 196. A venire facies de novo will always be awarded when the plaintiff's dec laration contains a good cause of action, and judgment in his favor is reversed by the court of error ; Little Schuylkill Nay. R. & Coal Co. v. Norton, 24 Pa. 470, 64 Am. Dec. 672. Frequently, however, when judgment is reversed, the court of error not merely over turns the decision of the court below, but will give such a judgment as the court below ought to have given ; Smith, Act. 196; but see NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO. •