Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.
This text of 60 F. 643 (Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
By mistake of counsel, the decree entered in this case did not, in some important respects, conform to the opinion and decision of the court theretofore rendered and entered of record; but the fact was not brought to the attention of the court until long after the lapse of the term at which the decree was entered, when a motion was made on behalf of the defendant in the suit to so amend the decree as to make it conform to the decision of the court. The moving party, I think, will have to look for the correction sought to the appellate court, where the case is now pending; for it is the established law that in the federal courts the power does not exist, after the lapse of the term at which a judgment or decree is entered, to so change or modify it as to substantially vary or affect it in any material thing. Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410; Sibbald v. U. S., 12 Pet. 491. Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 F. 643, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-waterloo-min-co-circtsdca-1894.