People Ex Rel. Samuel H. Mccrea v. Quick

• Decision Date: 30 September 1879
• Citation: 1879 WL 8562,92 Ill. 580
• Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel. Samuel H. McCrea, Collector, etc.v.JOHN H. QUICK et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

92 Ill. 580

1879 WL 8562 (Ill.)

THE PEOPLE ex rel. Samuel H. McCrea, Collector, etc.

v.JOHN H. QUICK et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1879.

APPEAL from the Appellate Court of the First District; the Hon. THEODORE D. MURPHY, presiding Justice, and Hon. GEO. W. PLEASANTS, and Hon. JOSEPH M. BAILEY, Justices.

Mr. CONSIDER H. WILLETT, for the appellant.

Mr. JOHN P. WILSON, for the appellees. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

An application was made for a judgment against lots in block 52, original town of Chicago, for the taxes of 1873, 1874 and 1875, when a judgment for the sale of the property was rendered, which was subsequently reversed and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court. On filing a mandate in the county court a judgment was entered against the property for two-thirds of the taxes for the year 1875, but by the order no disposition was made of the application for the years 1873 and 1874. This judgment was entered on the 19th day of December, 1878. At the March term, 1879, the objectors moved the court to correct the order so as to embrace the years 1873 and 1874 for two-thirds of the taxes for those years, and to have the order so amending the record entered nunc pro tunc as of the 19th of December, 1878. The application was based on the affidavit of the attorney, that he made an agreement with the county and corporation counsel that a judgment should be entered against the property for two-thirds of the taxes for each year, when by a clerical error it was only so entered for the taxes for the year 1875.

Appellant moved that a trial be had on the merits, but the motion was overruled and the motion to amend the record as requested was allowed. On appellant's motion the opposite counsel offered to introduce in evidence the publication, collector's return and other evidence, which was claimed to entitle appellant to judgment for the full amount of taxes for each year, but the court refused to hear it.

There can be no question that courts may amend their records so as to make them speak the truth,--otherwise justice would be defeated in many cases. If the agreement was that the judgment should, at the December term, be rendered for two-thirds of the taxes for those years, and that was the judgment of the court, and for any reason it was not so entered, the court could, from its minutes or other sufficient evidence, at a subsequent term, enter a nunc pro tunc order making the...