Morrison v. Dapman

3 Cal. 255
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 3 Cal. 255 (Morrison v. Dapman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morrison v. Dapman, 3 Cal. 255 (Cal. 1853).

Opinion

[257]*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 although a court may thus at any time make the entry conform to what was the judgment rendered, it will not be permitted, after the lapse of a term, to open upon motion, and render a new judgment. Such a practice is too loose, and would give rise to too much uncertainty.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Albori v. Sykes
65 P.2d 84 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
In Re Jennings' Estate
254 P. 1067 (Montana Supreme Court, 1927)
Woods v. Woods
254 P. 1067 (Montana Supreme Court, 1927)
Goatman v. Fuller
216 P. 35 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
City and County of San Francisco v. Brown
96 P. 281 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Sherman Bros. v. Potter
75 P. 850 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Leonis v. Leffingwell
58 P. 940 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Scamman v. Bonslett
50 P. 272 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Kaufman v. Shain
43 P. 393 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Brackett v. Banegas
34 P. 344 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Vestal v. State
3 Tex. Ct. App. 648 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1878)
Moulton v. Beecher
1 Abb. N. Cas. 193 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Mayo v. City of Sacramento
1 Cal. Unrep. 646 (California Supreme Court, 1870)
Casement v. Ringgold
28 Cal. 335 (California Supreme Court, 1865)
Castro v. Richardson
25 Cal. 49 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
Fairchild v. Dean
15 Wis. 206 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1862)
Branger & Driard v. Chevalier
9 Cal. 351 (California Supreme Court, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Cal. 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-dapman-cal-1853.