Morrison v. Dapman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco. This was an ejectment for the 50 vara lot, Eo. 453, in San Francisco, and for $5000 damages for mesne profits. The deceased claimed to be seised of said lot, Eovember 13th, 1843, and died so seised in January, 1844; the plaintiff is his administrator, and there is no other property of said deceased except his claim to this lot.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco. This was an ejectment for the 50 vara lot, Eo. 453, in San Francisco, and for $5000 damages for mesne profits. The deceased claimed to be seised of said lot, Eovember 13th, 1843, and died so seised in January, 1844; the plaintiff is his administrator, and there is no other property of said deceased except his claim to this lot. The complaint set forth demand and refusal of possession, and the defendants’ answer denies all the allegations of the bill, and claims title in defendants under the City of San Francisco. The cause was placed on the…
1Opinion of the Court
*257In July, 1852, the Superior Court entered judgment, that the defendants recover their costs, to be levied de bonis intestatis.
In January, 1853, this judgment is opened and amended, so that the costs be levied de bonis propriis.
A court may at any time render or amend a judgment nune pro tunc. But this power is confined to cases where the record discloses, that the entry on the minutes does not correctly give what was the judgment of the court.
If there is no record evidence, to show that the judgment was different from the one entered, the latter must stand as the judgment until reversed.
And…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Kaufman v. ShainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- City and County of San Francisco v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Brackett v. BanegasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Scamman v. BonslettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Castro v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.