Christisen v. Bartlett

• Decision Date: 07 April 1906
• Docket Number: 14,488
• Citation: 84 P. 530,73 Kan. 401
• Parties: GEORGE J. CHRISTISEN v. EDWIN BARTLETT
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

84 P. 530

73 Kan. 401

GEORGE J. CHRISTISEN v. EDWIN BARTLETT

No. 14,488

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 7, 1906

Decided January, 1906.

Error from Hodgeman district court; CHARLES E. LOBDELL, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. JURISDICTION--District Court--Correction of the Record. A district court has the power to correct the entry of a judgment so as to cause it to speak the truth after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered, and upon the personal knowledge of the judge of what took place in court at the time of its rendition.

2. JURISDICTION--Notice to the Parties. Whether or not it is competent for a district court of its own motion, upon discovering that an error has been made in the entry of a judgment, to order a correction thereof without notice to a party affected, such want of notice cannot be made the basis of a complaint in this court by one who afterward filed a motion asking that the entry be restored to its original form, and was given a hearing upon the merits of such motion, the decision of which was against him.

Finley & Madison, for plaintiff in error.

F. Dumont Smith, for defendant in error.

MASON J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

MASON, J.

Edwin Bartlett sued George J. Christisen in ejectment. A judgment was rendered for the defendant, which was immediately set aside, over his objection, upon demand of the plaintiff, by notice on the journal, the cause being then continued to the next term. A record was shortly thereafter made of these proceedings, stating that the judgment was rendered by consent of the plaintiff. The defendant then filed a petition in error in this court based upon the contention that, as the judgment had been given by consent of the plaintiff, the court had no authority to set it aside, the statute authorizing a second trial in ejectmen having no application to such a case. On the first day of the next term the district court of its own motion, and without notice to the defendant, made an order reciting that the journal entry theretofore made was incomplete and in part untrue, and directing a new entry to be made in accordance with the actual facts. The journal was thereupon corrected in obedience to this order. The new entry showed in detail the circumstances under which the judgment had been rendered, and in particular recited that the plaintiff consented to its rendition only upon the condition that it should be immediately set aside upon his application. Still later the defendant filed a motion to set aside the order of correction, and gave the plaintiff notice of a hearing upon it. A hearing was had, both parties being represented, and the motion was denied. The proceedings subsequent to the judgment are brought to our notice by supplemental transcripts.

Two questions are presented--whether this court shall look to the original or to the corrected entry to learn the circumstances under which the judgment was rendered, and whether, under the facts as disclosed by whichever entry shall be held to control, it was error for the district court to set aside the judgment.

The order of correction is objected to on three grounds: (1) That it was not in accordance with the real facts, and was not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) that it was made after the expiration of the term of court at...