Hedgewood v. Shiek

• Decision Date: 18 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 2853.,2853.
• Parties: HEDGEWOOD v. SHIEK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

233 S.W. 58

HEDGEWOOD v. SHIEK.

No. 2853.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 18, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; F. H. Dearing, Judge.

Action by C. W. Hedgewood against John Shiek. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment reversed.

O. L. Munger, of Piedmont, and Gee. Munger, of Bloomfield, for appellant.

A. O. Daniel and G. C. Stephens, both of Piedmont, for respondent.

COX, P. J.

Action to enjoin defendant, who is a justice of the peace, from issuing execution on judgment entered by him in his docket in favor of A. E. Breitenbach against the plaintiff, C. W. Hedgewood. A temporary writ of injunction was issued, which on the trial was made perpetual, and defendant appealed.

The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts which shows the following: That A. H. Breitenbach brought suit against Hedgewood, plaintiff herein, before defendant, John Shiek, a justice of the peace. The case was tried before the justice without a jury. At the close of the trial at about 11 a. m., the justice announced that his judgment would be in favor of defendant, Hedgewood. Defendant and his counsel then left the office of the justice where the case was tried and did not return. At about 5 p. m. on the same day the justice met the attorney for defendant on the street and informed the attorney that he had changed his mind about the case and the judgment would be for the plaintiff. The judgment for plaintiff, Breitenbach, against Hedgewood was written up in the justice docket about 5 p. m. on the same day, but whether before or after the notice to defendant's attorney does not appear. The defendant took no steps to appeal, but immediately brought this suit to enjoin the justice from issuing execution on the judgment as written in the docket and contends that the judgment in fact rendered by the justice was what he announced at the close of the trial, which was in his favor, and that the judgment shown in the docket is a nullity.

We know of no theory of law upon which the judgment of the trial court restraining the justice from issuing execution on the judgment as shown in his docket can be upheld. The statute requires the justice to keep a docket and to enter therein all judgments rendered by him, and, when a judgment is regularly entered therein, it speaks for itself and imports verity. State ex rel. v. Wurdeman, 192 Mo. App. 657, 664, 179 S. W. 964.

The docket entry being clear and unambiguous, and no fraud, accident, or mistake being charged, the docket is the best and only competent evidence as to what judgment the justice in fact rendered, and it cannot be contradicted by parol. Garnett v. Stacy, 17 Mo. 601; Sutton v. Cole, 155 Mo. 206, 55 S. W. 1052; Development Co. v. Norman, 184 Mo. App. 146, 108 S. W. 643.

In the Garnett Case the court, in discussing the question of contradicting proper entries in the justice's docket by parol said:

"But, to permit a party, at any length of time after a trial, and when no appeal had been taken, to contradict the entries on the justice's docket, would be a very dangerous practice, and would destroy all confidence in the trials before...