Heidemann v. Krueger

• Decision Date: 19 December 1945
• Docket Number: 7259
• Parties: LAUREN HEIDEMANN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MRS. HENRY KRUEGER and ELSIE KRUEGER, Defendants-Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

164 P.2d 591

66 Idaho 612

LAUREN HEIDEMANN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MRS. HENRY KRUEGER and ELSIE KRUEGER, Defendants-Appellants

No. 7259

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 19, 1945

1. Courts

On appeal from judgment of probate court, the district court had jurisdiction to require probate court to correct and amend its records to conform with the facts.

2. Courts

Where judgment of probate court was entered on March 31, 1945, a purported notice of appeal to district court, which was filed in probate court on March 30, 1945, was ineffectual and appeal was properly dismissed. (I.C.A., sec. 11-301.)

Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District for Twin Falls County. Hon. James W. Porter, Judge.

Affirmed.

O. C Hall for appellants.

Ray D Agee for respondent.

A Court has the inherent power to amend its record so that it shall conform to the actual facts and truth of the case, and, on an appeal to the District Court from a Probate Court, it is the duty of the District Court to require the Probate Judge to correct his docket entries to speak the truth. Haddock v. Jackson, 51 Ida. 560, 8 P.2d 279.

Where notice of appeal is served or filed before the rendition of the judgment, it is a nullity and confers no jurisdiction on the appellate court to consider the case. I. C. A., sec. 11-301; 4 C. J. S., p. 340, sec. 165; Dalton v. Abercrombie, 35 Ida. 290, 206 P. 1051; Haddock v. Jackson, 51 Ida. 560, 8 P.2d 279; June v. Superior Court (Cal.), 116 P. 293.

Budge, J. Ailshie, C. J., and Givens, Holden and Miller, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Budge, J.

Throughout this opinion we shall refer to respondent as plaintiff, and appellants as defendants.

This action was commenced in the Probate Court of Twin Falls County to recover the value of certain personal property alleged to have been the property of plaintiff, and for exemplary damages. Proceedings had in the probate court resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants for the alleged value of the property, together with costs. From the judgment so entered in the probate court defendants appealed to the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District. Thereafter plaintiff made, served and filed a motion in the district court, supported by affidavit, for an order directing the probate court to make amendments and corrections in its docket, a transcript of which had theretofore been filed with the clerk of the district court of the above named district. After a hearing had thereon, the district judge made and entered an order directing the probate court to "forthwith and without delay correct his docket entries in the above entitled action to speak the truth as to the date of the entry of the judgment on his docket in said action, * * * and without delay certify to this Court a true and correct transcript of his judgment docket in said action as corrected." Thereafter the probate court corrected and amended its docket to show that the judgment was duly entered in the docket of said probate court on the 31st day of March, 1945, and not on the 30th day of March, 1945. Said corrected and amended transcript of the docket was duly and regularly certified and filed with the clerk of the district court.

That the district court had jurisdiction and authority to require the probate court to correct and amend its record to conform to the facts and to speak the truth has been settled in this jurisdiction. (Haddock v. Jackson, 51 Ida. 560, 8 P.2d 279; Pac. Finance Corporation v. LaMonte, 64 Ida. 438, 133 P.2d 921.) The certified copy of the corrected and amended docket of the probate court having been duly filed with the clerk of the district court, plaintiff served and...