Cranston v. Stanfield

The first problem is, did the lower court have power to permit the filing of the returns of the summonses and to make the nmic pro tunc order. The office of nunc pro tunc order is “to speak what has been done, not create.” Cox v. Gress, 51 Ark. 224 (11 S. W. 416). Or as has been stated by another court, “to supply an omission in the record of action really had, but omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or to enter an order which should have been made as a matter of course and as a legal duty.” City of Grand Rapids v. Coit, 151 Mich. 109 (114 N. W. 880). Since it was the duty of the lower…