Jackson v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1886
• Citation: 1 S.W. 224,89 Mo. 104
• Parties: JACKSON and another v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 S.W. 224

89 Mo. 104

JACKSON and another v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 7, 1886.

COSTS — JURISDICTION — APPEAL FROM TAXATION.

A court has no jurisdiction to render judgment for costs on a motion made at a subsequent term, based upon facts not before the court at the final disposition of the cause at a previous term.

Appeal from Laclede circuit court.

John Opley, for appellant, St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. No appearance for respondents.

BLACK, J.

The plaintiffs, Jackson & Jackson, recovered judgment in the Laclede circuit court against A. S. Knight, and, under an execution issued thereon, summoned the defendant, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, as garnishee. The company made answer to the interrogatories that it was not the debtor of Knight. Plaintiffs filed their denial, setting up facts which, if true, made the company his debtor. To this the company replied by putting in issue the matters stated in the denial. After all these pleadings had been filed, the company, by leave of the court, filed a supplemental answer, stating that while it was not indebted to Knight at the time of the service of the garnishment, still there was a dispute pending between them which resulted in litigation, and, to save costs, etc., it agreed to pay him $100 by way of compromise. The company brought the money into court, and asked to be discharged. Knight, though brought into court, made no claim for the money, and, the supplemental answer of the garnishee not having been denied by the plaintiffs, the court gave judgment discharging the garnishee, with five dollars costs for filing answer. The court, at the subsequent term, and on the motion of the plaintiffs then filed, entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and against the garnishee, for all costs in the case. From this judgment the garnishee appealed.

Where the clerk of a court fails to enter the judgment pronounced, or enters up one not in fact rendered, it is undoubtedly within the power and proper province of the court, at a subsequent term, to make the judgment conform to the facts by an entry nunc pro tunc. Belkin v. Rhodes, 76 Mo. 643. But that is not the case here. The motion for judgment for costs made at the subsequent term was based upon facts not even before the court when the garnishee was discharged. The judgment discharging the garnishee was a final and complete disposition of the cause. The court thereafter, and at a subsequent term, had no...