State ex rel. Buckner v. Ellison
Supreme Court of Missouri
Certiorari. (1) The trial court has the right to correct record entries to make them conform to facts and speak the truth at any time hy a nunc pro tuno order. Although a circuit court may lose jurisdiction of a cause hy appeal, it still retains sufficient power over its own records to authorize it hy a nunc pro tuno order to correct its records to the extent that it shall speak the truth.
Read the full summary
Certiorari. (1) The trial court has the right to correct record entries to make them conform to facts and speak the truth at any time hy a nunc pro tuno order. Although a circuit court may lose jurisdiction of a cause hy appeal, it still retains sufficient power over its own records to authorize it hy a nunc pro tuno order to correct its records to the extent that it shall speak the truth. Johnson v. Ragan, 265 Mo. 441; Wilson v. Darrow, 223 Mo. 528; State ,v. Gordon, 196 Mo. 196; Reed v. Colp, 213 Mo. 586; Altholl v. Transit Co., 204 Mo. 172; DeKalb County v. Hixon, 44 Mo. 341; Exchange…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
—This is an original proceeding by certiorari, which seeks to quash, on the ground that it conflicts with controlling previous decisions of this court, an opinion of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in the case of State ex rel. Akin, relator, v. Buckner, respondent. The opinion in the above case is published in 203 S. W. 242. Hon. Thomas B. Buckner, the relator *297in the ease at bar, was respondent in that case, and is the Judge of Division One of the Cirenit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
The case in which the Kansas City Court of Appeals delivered the alleged conflicting opinion was an…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- DeKalb County v. HixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Collier v. Catherine Lead Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Burnside v. WandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- State Ex Rel. McNamee v. StobieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Belkin v. RhodesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Morton v. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- State Ex Rel. Holtkamp v. Hartmann.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- EC Robinson Lumber Company v. HazelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
- In Re Roff v. LuckMissouri Court of Appeals · 1932
- State Ex Rel., Arthur v. HammettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1941