In re Saric
| Decision Date | 19 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,330 |
| Citation | 149 N.E. 434,197 Ind. 1 |
| Parties | In re Saric et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1 JUDGMENT.---Nunc pro tunc entry of judgment may be made when judge's minute-book shows its rendition, although more than two years expired before application therefor.---Where the trial judge, on overruling the motion for a new trial pronounced judgment on the verdict and made an entry in his minute-book to that effect, but the clerk failed to record the judgment in the order-book, the judgment plaintiffs were entitled to have a nunc pro tunc entry of the judgment although more than two years had expired before application was made therefor. p. 6.
2. JUDGMENT.---Lapse of time does not prevent making nunc pro tunc entries of court proceedings omitted from the record.---Where rights of third persons have not intervened the mere lapse of time, however long, will not prevent the making of a nunc pro tunc entry of court proceedings which have not been entered by the clerk. p. 6.
3 JUDGMENT.---After rendition of judgment on verdict and making proper minute thereof, court had no power, at subsequent term, to render different judgment on previous verdict in another court before transference on change of venue.---Where a court rendered a final judgment on overruling a motion for a new trial, and made a sufficient minute of the fact, it had no power, at a subsequent term, to render a different judgment based on a verdict in a previous trial in another court before the cause was transferred on change of venue, especially where such verdict had been set aside by granting a new trial. p. 6.
4. JUDGMENT.---Power of court to modify or change a judgment ends with close of term at which rendered.---The power of a court over its judgment in the matter of modifying or changing it, or substituting a different judgment for the one first announced, ends with the expiration of the term at which it was rendered. p. 6.
5. JUDGMENT.---After expiration of term at which judgment rendered, court, has no power to render different judgment, and order-book entry that it has done so would not preclude application for nunc pro tunc entry of original judgment.---Where the term of court at which a judgment was rendered had expired, the court had no jurisdiction to render a different judgment on a previous verdict which had been set aside by the granting of a new trial, although the judgment first rendered had not been entered in the order-book, and an order-book entry reciting that it had done so would not preclude an application for a nunc pro tunc entry of the judgment as originally rendered. p. 7.
6. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.---Authority of attorneys appointed to prosecute proceeding to disbar attorney assumed to continue until judgment rendered properly entered in order-book.---The statute authorizes the appointment by the court of attorneys "to draw up and prosecute the accusation" in a proceeding to remove or suspend an attorney (1047 Burns 1926, 1011 Burns 1914, 976 R. S. 1881), and in the absence of a showing that their authority has been terminated by their removal, resignation or death, their authority will be assumed to continue until the judgment rendered therein is made effectual by being properly entered in the order-book. p. 7.
From Jasper Circuit Court; George A. Williams, Judge.
Proceeding to disbar Lazar W. Saric and Paul E. Crundwell. From a judgment overruling a petition for entry of judgment nunc pro tunc, the committee appointed to prosecute the proceeding appeals.
Reversed.
J. B. Peterson, George E. Hershman, Otto J. Bruce, Foster Bruce and Abraham Halleck, for appellants.
J. W. Brissey and Bomberger & Morthland, for appellees.
Appellees were the respondents below. In December, 1917, the circuit court of Lake county, Indiana, appointed a committee to investigate certain charges against them, they being at the time attorneys practicing in said court. The committee filed a complaint alleging that respondents had done a number of acts for which it asked that they be disbarred. Issues being joined, the cause was tried, in March, 1918, by a jury that returned a verdict, as follows: "We, the jury find against the defendants that they be suspended from practice as attorneys for a period of one day," but without otherwise indicating whether or not the charges or any of them were found to be true. The committee filed a motion for a new trial for each of six alleged reasons, among which were that the verdict was contrary to law and to the evidence, and that it was erroneous because of alleged misconduct of the jury. This motion was sustained and a new trial was granted, to which the respondents did not reserve an exception. But they applied for and were granted a change of venue, and the cause was then tried in Jasper county by a jury which on October 8, 1919, returned a verdict, as follows: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs, that the defendants are guilty as charged in the amended complaint and that they should be disbarred from the practice of law."
A motion for a new trial was duly filed by the respondents, and under date of September 28, 1920, an entry was made in the order-book that this motion was overruled, that each defendant excepted, that ninety days were given for filing all bills of exceptions, that defendants prayed an appeal and that an appeal was granted on filing on appeal bond within thirty days in the penalty of $ 200, with W. L. Wood as surety thereon. Ten days later, respondents filed an appeal bond in the penalty and with the surety as required, and a month afterward filed with the clerk a praecipe for a certified transcript of the record, "to be used on appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana." More than two years thereafter, the persons originally appointed by the Lake Circuit Court to investigate and file the charges, assuming to act as such committee, filed a verified petition which stated that after the verdict last above set out was returned and the motion for a new trial was filed, at the time when that motion was overruled, on September 28, 1920, the trial judge orally "pronounced judgment on the verdict of the jury," in addition to ruling on the motion for a new trial, granting time within which to file bills of exceptions, fixing the appeal bond and approving the surety; that he then " And that thereafter the bond and praecipe...
To continue reading
Request your trial