Hearn v. Canning

• Decision Date: 22 June 1905
• Citation: Hearn v. Canning, 27 R.I. 217, 61 A. 602 (R.I. 1905)
• Parties: HEARN v. CANNING.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

61 A. 602

27 R.I. 217

HEARN

v. CANNING.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 22, 1905.

Suit by John Hearn against Letitia A. Canning.Heard on bill, answer, and proofs.Bill dismissed.

Argued before DOUGLAS, C. J., and DUBOIS and BLODGETT, JJ.

Thomas W. Robinson and Claude J. Farnsworth, for complainant.Barney & Lee, for respondent

DUBOIS, J.The complainant has brought his bill of complaint, seeking thereby to restrain the service upon him of an execution in favor of the respondent, the judgment creditor in a certain judgment rendered against him by the common pleas division of this court, in this county, more than five years before the filing of the bill, upon the ground that the same was entered by accident and mistake, and therefore should be set aside.The respondent has filed her answer, denying that there was any accident or mistake in the rendition or entry of the judgment, and avers that the same was the result of the submission of the complainant by his counsel in open court, in accordance with the agreement of the parties to that effect.In support of the bill and answer, the parties, respectively, introduced evidence; but it appears that since the entry of the judgment was made the following named persons, who otherwise might have been called as witnesses, have deceased: George E. Webster, Esq., the clerk who made the record entries; Dennis J. Holland, Esq., the respondent's attorney of record at the time the judgment was entered; Charles A. Wilson and one Niles, witnesses for the respondent in the action wherein the judgment was rendered; and John F. Babbitt, a deputy of the sheriff of the county.The record in the case at law shows that the action was originally brought against the complainant in the district court of the Sixth judicial district, and that judgment went against him there by his default.The complainant then claimed a jury trial, and by written stipulation of counselthe case was assigned for trial for January 31, 1899, on which day Hearn again suffered a default.By written agreement of counsel the judgment by default was vacated, and the case was again assigned for trial on February 23, 1899, on which day the record further shows as follows: "Defendant submits to judgment for plaintiff for $160 debt, and costs."The complainant avers that this entry is incorrect, and that he did not know of its existence until shortly before the filing of his bill, when a demand was made upon him to satisfy the execution in the case.

1.The present proceeding involves the correction of the record of another court than this one.Under the provisions of Gen. Laws 1896, c. 246, § 2, "in case of judgment by default, or in case of judgment entered by mistake, or in case of decrees in all equity-causes and cases following the course of equity, the court entering the same shall have control over the same for the period of six months after the entry thereof, and may, for cause shown, set aside the same and reinstate the case, or make new entry and take other proceedings, with proper notice to parties, with or without terms, as it may by general rule or special order direct."Of course, it is now too late for the common pleas division to set the judgment aside and reinstate the case; but it is never too late for a court to amend its records, in order that the truth shall therein appear.If the aid of this court in equity is to be invoked upon the ground that a mistake was made in the entry of a judgment in another court, the correction of such record must be made in the court where such record exists.Smith v. Whaley, 27 R. I. 185, 61 Atl. 173.In Weigley v. Matson et al., 125 Ill. 66, 16 N. E. 882, 8 Am. St Rep. 335, the court say: "It is the settled rule of law that the record of a court, showing a...