Swain v. Naglee

19 Cal. 127
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1861·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

The entry here of the affirmance of the judgment was, as clearly appears from the context, designed to apply to the order granting the motion for a new trial. This error—if it be one, taking the whole proceeding together—is readily corrected by the record; and all Courts have the power to amend clerical errors and enter a judgment nunc pro tunc, when the record itself discloses the error; and this though the term has elapsed at which the entry was made.

Ordered that the motion to amend be granted, but without costs on the motion.

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

Swain v. Naglee, 19 Cal. 127 (Cal. 1861).

19 Cal. 127 (Swain v. Naglee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Rudolph
181 P.2d 765 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
Rogers v. Biggstaff's
195 S.W. 777 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
Chester v. Graves
166 S.W. 998 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1914)
City and County of San Francisco v. Brown
96 P. 281 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Lovett v. State
29 Fla. 384 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1892)
Fallon v. Brittan
24 P. 381 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Territory of Montana v. Clayton
8 Mont. 1 (Montana Supreme Court, 1888)
Dreyfuss v. Tompkins
7 P. 732 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
In re Estate of Schroeder
46 Cal. 304 (California Supreme Court, 1873)
Mayo v. City of Sacramento
1 Cal. Unrep. 646 (California Supreme Court, 1870)
Comanche Mining Co. v. Rumley
1 Mont. 201 (Montana Supreme Court, 1870)
Casement v. Ringgold
28 Cal. 335 (California Supreme Court, 1865)
Hegeler v. Henckell
27 Cal. 491 (California Supreme Court, 1865)
Castro v. Richardson
25 Cal. 49 (California Supreme Court, 1864)