Bradley v. Slater
| Decision Date | 03 May 1899 |
| Citation | 58 Neb. 554,78 N.W. 1069 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. SLATER. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. A court of general jurisdiction possesses inherent power to vacate or modify its own judgments at any time during the term at which they are pronounced.
2. Such power exists entirely independent of any statute. It is derived from the common law, and the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to new trials does not assume to abridge it. Section 314 of said Code does not deal with the power of the court, but with the rights of the parties.
3. A defendant against whom judgment has been rendered by default may during the term, and after the expiration of three days from the date of the judgment, ask the court, as a matter of judicial grace, and in furtherance of justice, to grant him a new trial; and the court may comply with his request, regardless of the form in which it is presented.
4. If the application in such case be in the form of an ordinary motion for a new trial, it will be presumed that the court, in sustaining it, acted within its authority, and not in violation of law, that it rightfully exerted its inherent jurisdiction, and not that it erroneously assumed to grant the motion as a demandable right.
On rehearing. Affirmed.
For former opinion, see 75 N. W. 826.
At a former term the judgment of the district court was affirmed. 55 Neb. 334, 75 N. W. 826. A rehearing was afterwards allowed, and the cause has been again argued and submitted. Of the points discussed on the reargument, it will be necessary to consider only the authority of the court to grant Slater's motion for a new trial, filed more than three days after the rendition of the judgment against him. A re-examination of this question has satisfied us that the conclusion announced in the former opinion is correct, and we adhere to it. Courts of general jurisdiction possess inherent power to vacate and modify their own judgments at any time during the term at which they were pronounced. This power exists entirely independent of any statute. It is derived from the common law, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to new trials do not assume to abolish or abridge it. Section 314 of the Code does not deal with the power of the court, but with the rights of the litigant. It declares that a verdict or decision shall be vacated, and a new trial granted, on the application of the party aggrieved, for certain enumerated reasons. If any one of these reasons exists, and the party complaining makes his application in writing within the time fixed by the statute, the court has no discretion in the matter; the motion must be sustained. But, if such motion be presented out of time, it is not entitled to be considered, and may be stricken from the files. To overrule it is not error. Such is the effect of the decisions cited by counsel for Bradley: Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Preston, 3 Neb. 444; Fox v. Meacham, 6 Neb. 530; Davis v. State, 31 Neb. 240, 47 N. W. 851;McDonald v. McAllister, 32 Neb. 514, 49 N. W. 377;Gage v. Town Co., 37 Neb. 699, 56 N. W. 491;State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial