Swain v. Naglee
California Supreme Court
Motion in the Supreme Court to amend its judgment. The case was decided at the January term, 1861, and is reported in 17 Cal. 417. The remittitur having been issued and the cause called for trial in the Court below, it was discovered that the judgment of the Supreme Court, as entered, affirmed the judgment below, instead of the order granting the new trial; whereupon the Court below stopped proceedings.
Read the full summary
Motion in the Supreme Court to amend its judgment. The case was decided at the January term, 1861, and is reported in 17 Cal. 417. The remittitur having been issued and the cause called for trial in the Court below, it was discovered that the judgment of the Supreme Court, as entered, affirmed the judgment below, instead of the order granting the new trial; whereupon the Court below stopped proceedings. Respondent subsequently—at the July term, 1861—moved the Supreme Court to amend its judgment by making it read,“ the order of the District Court, granting a new trial, is affirmed,” instead…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
The entry here of the affirmance of the judgment was, as clearly appears from the context, designed to apply to the order granting the motion for a new trial. This error—if it be one, taking the whole proceeding together—is readily corrected by the record; and all Courts have the power to amend clerical errors and enter a judgment nunc pro tunc, when the record itself discloses the error; and this though the term has elapsed at which the entry was made.
Ordered that the motion to amend be granted, but without costs on the motion.
2Cited by14 opinions
- Territory of Montana v. ClaytonMontana Supreme Court · 1888
- City and County of San Francisco v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Lovett v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1892
- Chester v. GravesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Castro v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.