Pursley v. Wickle
| Decision Date | 14 April 1892 |
| Citation | 30 N.E. 1115,4 Ind.App. 382 |
| Parties | PURSLEY v. WICKLE. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Howard county; LEX J. KIRKPATRICK, Judge.
Action by Andrew J. Wickle against Jacob Pursley for damages for fraud in an exchange of lands. Judgment for plaintiff. From a judgment overruling his motion to modify and correct the judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J. F. Morrison and C. A. Pollard, for appellant. Blacklidge, Shirley & Moon, for appellee.
On the 14th of November, 1885, in the Howard circuit court, the appellee, in an action against the appellant for damages on account of alleged fraud in the exchange of lands, recovered judgment for one dollar, as also for all costs by him laid out and expended not theretofore adjudged. At the March term, 1890, of said court, the appellee filed what was entitled, and was in fact, a “motion to modify and correct” said judgment, so that the appellant's recovery of costs would be for one dollar only. The appellant appeared to the motion, and resisted the same. The court, after considering the motion and hearing the evidence, overruled the motion, and the appellant excepted. The action of the court in overruling the motion, and the exceptions thereto, have been properly brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. The overruling of said motion has been assigned as error by the appellant. Other errors have been assigned by the appellant, but the conclusion we have reached renders it unnecessary to consider them. Counsel for the appellant complain that in the rendering of the judgment in favor of the appellee for costs, and which it is now sought to modify, section 592 of the Code was disregarded. That section is as follows: “In all actions for damages solely, not arising out of contract, if the plaintiff do not recover five dollars damages, he shall recover no more costs than damages, except in actions for injuries to character and false imprisonment, and where the title to real estate comes in question.” On the part of the appellee it is insisted that, whatever may be said of the action of the court in its judgment for costs, that judgment cannot be now amended or modified upon the motion made by the appellant. Relief may be granted in a proper case, under section 396 of the Code, within the period named therein, where a judgment has been taken against a party through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; and a judgment may be reviewed, under section 615 of the Code, within the periods named therein, for error of law appearing in the proceedings and judgment, or for material new matter discovered since the rendition thereof. The present motion or proceeding is confessedly not under either of these statutes. Indeed, the time within which relief may be had under these statutes had expired before the motion to modify the judgment was made. Nor is it a suit in equity to set aside or vacate, in whole or in part, a judgment upon any of the grounds on which courts of equity will interfere to prevent the enforcement of judgments. It is well settled that courts have the power to correct mistakes and supply omissions in their records, whenever and wherever the records supply the means of making such correction or supplying such omissions. Miller v. Royce, 60 Ind. 189;Reiley v. Burton, 71 Ind. 118;Chissom v. Barber, 100 Ind. 1; 1 Work, Pr. §§ 714- 716, 1030, 1031. This power is inherent, and belongs to the court as such; it does not depend upon a statutory grant of jurisdiction. 1 Black, Judgm. § 161, Freem. Judgm. (3d Ed.) § 71. The authorities all hold that a court has plenary control over its orders, judgments, and decrees during the term at which they are rendered. Nor is it only in respect to clerical misprisions or omissions that this power of amendment during the term may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial