Hiawassee Lumber Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 04 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 3428.,3428.
• Parties: HIAWASSEE LUMBER CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

64 F.2d 417 (1933)

HIAWASSEE LUMBER CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3428.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 4, 1933.

R. L. Phillips, of Robbinsville, N. C., and Moody & Moody, of Murphy, N. C., for appellants.

Thomas J. Harkins, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to modify or correct a judgment. The action in which the motion was made was instituted by the United States against the Hiawassee Lumber Company in the year 1910 and came to trial in 1919. It was a civil action under the North Carolina Code in the nature of an action of ejectment, in which the United States claimed title to a tract of land covered by grant 3110 and asked that the lumber company be ejected therefrom. The lumber company denied the title of the United States and claimed ownership in itself, but the record proper does not show that it made any claim under what are referred to by the parties as the Herbert grants, to which the motion for correction relates. Issue as to the location of grant 3110 was submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the United States; and judgment was thereupon entered that the United States was the owner of the land covered by the grant with the exception of that embraced in six prior grants which were specifically described in the judgment.

In 1926, more than seven years after the entry of the judgment, the defendant Hiawassee Lumber Company, joining with it the Savage Bros. Land Company to whom its lands had been conveyed, filed motion that the judgment be corrected so as to exclude from its terms the lands embraced in five additional grants, known as the Herbert grants. It was averred as a basis of the motion that these Herbert grants, as well as the grants mentioned in the judgment, were senior to grant 3110; that a list of the senior grants was furnished to the draftsman of the judgment, including the prior Herbert grants as well as the other six; that, "by error, oversight and mistake," the draftsman in preparing the judgment set forth only the six grants and omitted to mention the Herbert grants as covering land excluded from the terms of the judgment; and that the motion for correction was made immediately upon discovering the mistake. There is nothing in the pleadings in the original cause showing that the Herbert grants were senior to grant 3110; and it does not appear that any entries of record were made to that effect or that the judgment signed by the court was other than what the judge intended to sign at the time. The official map has been certified to this court; and an examination of it shows no reference to the Herbert grants, although the grants excepted by the judgment are plotted on it. It is not claimed that the judgment as entered is not in conformity with the pleadings, verdict, and other portions of the record proper; but correction is asked because of alleged mistake of the draftsman in omitting an exception which it is said the parties intended the judgment to include when presented for the signature of the judge.

We think it clear that the court was without power to entertain the motion. The court has complete control over its judgments during the term and may set them aside or modify them as justice may require. But with the expiration of the term, this control ceases, except in cases where proceedings for setting aside or modifying the judgment have been commenced during the term. Realty Acceptance Corporation v. Montgomery, 284 U. S. 547, 52 S. Ct. 215, 76 L. Ed. 476; D. L. & W. R. Co. v. Rellstab, 276 U. S. 1, 48 S. Ct. 203, 72 L. Ed. 439; U. S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 35 S. Ct. 16, 19, 59 L. Ed. 129; Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 26 L. Ed. 797; Marion County Court, W. Va., v. Ridge (C. C. A. 4th) 13 F.(2d) 969, 970. The only exception to this rule is that the court at a subsequent term has power to correct inaccuracies in form or clerical errors and to rectify such mistakes of fact as were reviewable at common law by writs of error coram nobis, or coram vobis. As pointed out by Mr. Justice Hughes in the Mayer Case, supra: "These writs were available to bring before the court that pronounced the judgment errors in matters of fact which had not been put in issue or passed upon and were material to the validity and regularity of the legal proceeding itself; as where the defendant, being under age, appeared by attorney, or the plaintiff or defenda...