Garnett v. Stacy
| Decision Date | 31 March 1853 |
| Citation | 17 Mo. 601 |
| Parties | GARNETT, Plaintiff in Error, v. STACY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A justice of the peace cannot be compelled by mandamus to alter the entry of a judgment upon his docket. It seems, that if the entry does not show whether the judgment was upon the merits or not, parol evidence would be admissible in a second suit on the same demand, to show the true character of the judgment, and thus avoid its effect as a bar.
Error to Marion Circuit Court.
Richmond, Harrison & Hawkins, for plaintiff in error. It is the province of superior courts to compel inferior tribunals, by mandamus, to perform ministerial acts. 10 Pick. 246. 3 Dallas, 42. 18 Pick. 446. By our constitution, circuit courts have a superintending control over justices of the peace. The petitioner does not ask that the justice be compelled to do a judicial act, but simply that he shall be made to enter on his docket a true statement of the judgment rendered by him as a justice. He is clerk of his own court, and may be compelled to correct a clerical error. The petitioner has no other remedy. He took no appeal, as none was necessary, had the proper entry been made on the docket, as he had a right to presume it would have been. If he should bring a second suit, the judgment, as it stands, might be pleaded in bar.
T. Vanswearingen, for defendant in error. The Circuit Court has no power to compel a justice, by mandamus, to alter the entry upon his docket of a judgment rendered by him in his judicial capacity. 10 Pick. 244. 11 ib. 189. 18 ib. 443. 18 Wend. 79. 20 ib. 658. 4 Mo. Rep. 289. An erroneous decision of an inferior tribunal cannot be revised by mandamus. A mandamus will lie to compel an adjudication, but not to correct it. 2 Bibb, 574. A mandamus will not lie where the party has any other remedy at law. 10 Wend. 293. 1 Cowen, 417. 4 Bacon's Abridg. 507, 510. Here the petitioner had a remedy by motion, and if that was denied, by appeal.SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
Garnett commenced an action against John O. Aydelott, before the above named Stacy, who was a justice of the peace in Miller township, Marion county. It appears from the justice's docket, that, on a trial between Garnett and Aydelott, the following entry was made: “Both parties appeared, and after hearing the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, judgment for defendant for costs of suit expended.” This was in November, 1848. On the 14th of November, 1851, Garnett applied to the Circuit Court of Marion county, for a mandamus on the justice to compel him to amend his docket, so as to make it appear that he was nonsuited, and not that there was a judgment on the merits against him. The application averred, that the suit was dismissed for the reason that it had been improperly brought on a copy of the note which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex inf. Major v. Woods
... ... showing fraud. Pulliam v. Pensoneau, 36 Ill. 374; ... Taylor v. Larken, 12 Mo. 103; Garrett v ... Stacy, 17 Mo. 601; Baker v. Lane, 137 Mo. 682; ... State ex rel. v. Breen, 85 P. 870; Black v ... Miller, 75 Mich. 323; Wood v. Fout, 55 Mich ... ...
-
Heard v. Holbrook
...33 Am. St. Rep. 768, 49 N.W. 733; 2 Enc. Pl. & Pr. pp. 301, 302. Mandamus will not lie to compel justice to correct his docket. Garnett v. Stacy, 17 Mo. 601, cited in 26 Cyc. Law & Proc. p. 197; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152, 20 L.Ed. 877; Cyc. Law & Proc. p. 178; State ex rel. Mooney v. Ed......
-
State v. Hobbs
...is regularly entered therein, it imports verity and is the best and only competent evidence as to the fact covered by such entry. [Garnett v. Stacy, 17 Mo. 601; Sutton Cole, supra; Hedgewood v. Shiek, 233 S.W. 58; Tyree v. Navrau, 215 Mo.App. 630, 258 S.W. 717; Illinois Glass Company v. Ing......
-
Crandall v. Durham
...to be presented in the instant action were there litigated. This is confirmed by the justice's record, which recites (see Garnett v. Stacy, 17 Mo. 601) that the court to sustain defendant's defense because of his promise to pay plaintiff notwithstanding his bankruptcy. While cases appealed ......