Pacific Finance Corporation of California v. LaMonte

• Decision Date: 03 February 1943
• Docket Number: 7074
• Citation: 133 P.2d 921,64 Idaho 438
• Parties: PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, a corporation, Respondent, v. ALBERT V. LaMONTE, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

133 P.2d 921

64 Idaho 438

PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, a corporation, Respondent, v. ALBERT V. LaMONTE, Appellant

No. 7074

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 3, 1943

COURTS-COURT RECORDS, SUFFICIENCY OF-JUSTICE AND PROBATE COURT RECORDS.

1. Where district court directed probate court to make his record and certificate conform to the truth as to the docketing of a judgment, and probate judge complied with such directions, district court was without jurisdiction to make a different finding as to when probate judge had made record and as to docketing, since the error if any was merely "clerical" not "judicial" and did not go to the merits or impair the judgment, and since the probate judge could not be examined as a witness to contradict his official record and certificate. (I.C.A secs. 10-1003 to 10-1005, 10-1301, subd. 9.

2. The records of a justice court or probate court, made within the scope of the court's jurisdiction, are entitled to be accorded the same verity as is accorded to the records of other courts.

3. Corrections in the records of a justice or probate court which records have been made within the scope of the court's jurisdiction, must be made in the court where the error occurred.

4. A court may not amend its record to correct a judicial error but the court has the inherent power to amend such record to conform to the actual facts.

5. Where district court on appeal from the probate court was without jurisdiction to make a different finding of fact from that made by the probate court as to the docketing of the judgment, district court erred in dismissing the appeal after making a corrected finding which showed that the appeal had been taken more than 30 days after docketing of judgment. (I.C.A., secs. 10-1003 to 10-1005, 10-1301, subd. 9.

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Blaine County. Hon. D. H. Sutphen, Judge.

Civil action in Probate Court, for recovery of personal property or value thereof. District Court dismissed defendant's appeal from Probate Court. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with direction. Costs awarded in favor of appellant.

James & James and Conroy Gillespie for appellant.

The record of the proceedings and judgments in a justice (or probate court), as embodied in a duly certified transcript, imports absolute verity, and cannot be contradicted by extrinsic evidence in the appellate court. (Dreyfus v. Mofine, Milburn & Stoddard Co., 61; Bates v. Phoenix Pub. Co., 69 N.W. 599 (Neb.) (3), Reporter (Neb.) 305 (2); Douglas et al., v. District Court of Salt Lake County et al., 146 P. 592 (Utah) (1).

J. H. Barnes for respondent.

District Courts, being courts of general jurisdiction, have the power to pass upon the question of their jurisdiction whenever that jurisdiction is challenged. (Const., Art. 5, Sec. 20; Durant v. Comegys, 3 Idaho 67, 70; Williams v. Sherman, 36 Idaho 494, 503; 7 R. C. L. 1030, Sec. 58; idem 1042, Sec. 75.)

Where, after a case has been certified to the District Court on appeal, the accuracy of the record is questioned as regards dates or other clerical details, it is the duty of the District Court to see that the record of the lower court speaks the truth, and for that purpose it may go fully into the facts. (Haddock v. Jackson, 51 Idaho 560.)

AILSHIE, J. Holden, C. J., Budge, Givens, and Dunlap, JJ., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, J.

This is a civil action commenced in the Probate Court of Blaine County for the recovery of certain personal property or the value thereof. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed to the District Court. On motion of the plaintiff, the District Court dismissed defendant's appeal; whereupon defendant appeal to this court.

The proceedings, had in the course of this case, are somewhat involved; however, the essential facts, upon which our decision must be based, are substantially as follows: The trial in the Probate Court was concluded January 15, 1942, and judgment was ordered in favor of the plaintiff on that date. No judgment was "entered by the court" on the docket at that time, as required by Secs. 10-1003, 10-1005, 10-1301 (Subd. 9), I. C. A. (Dalton v. Abercrombie, 35 Idaho 290, 206 P. 1051; Haddock v. Jackson, 51 Idaho 560, 8 P.2d 279.)

An appeal was taken from the judgment February 24, 1942. Thereafter and on April 24, 1942, defendant made motion in the District Court, for an order directing the Probate Court to make amendments and corrections in his docket. After a hearing, the District Court entered an order, directing the Probate Court

"to make such amendments and corrections in his docket in the above case as are necessary to show the true date that the judgment in said case was entered in his docket, and, further, that he forthwith prepare, certify and forward to the clerk of the above court a true copy of his docket entries in said case as so amended and corrected."

On the same date, April 24, 1942, the motion to amend and correct the docket entry was heard in the Probate Court and, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Probate Judge entered an order as follows:

". . . it is hereby ordered that said motion be and the same is hereby granted and the docket of said case is hereby amended and corrected to show that the judgment in the above cause was entered in said docket on January 28, 1942, and not on January 15, 1942, as heretofore shown by said docket."

This order was duly and regularly entered and thereupon properly certified to the District Court.

Thereafter, May 6, 1942, plaintiff appears in the District Court "for the purpose only of objecting to the jurisdiction" of that court and moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the same was taken more than thirty days after the entry of judgment, alleging that the judgment was in fact entered in the Probate Court docket January 20th. The motion was based "upon the records and files in the above entitled action, and upon the affidavit of J. H. Barnes, submitted herewith." The affidavit of Mr. Barnes consists of a history of the case and an exchange of letters between himself and the Probate Judge, with reference to the proceedings and the docketing of the judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Judge entered an order and judgment dismissing the appeal, on the ground that it was taken more than thirty days after docketing the judgment; and directing the Probate Judge to amend his docket entry to make it show that the judgment was docketed January 20th. This appeal is from that judgment and order.

It is conceded that the District Court had the jurisdiction and authority to require the Probate Court to make his record and certificate conform to the facts as they occurred and to speak the truth. The Probate Judge complied with the direction of the District Court and certified that the judgment appealed from was docketed by him on the 28th of January. Respondent was not satisfied with that correction and asked the District Court to make a different finding...