Tippins v. Peters
| Decision Date | 15 May 1894 |
| Citation | 103 Ala. 196,15 So. 564 |
| Parties | TIPPINS v. PETERS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Escambia county; J. R. Tyson, Judge.
Action of trespass by P. H. M. Tippins against Richard G. Peters. Plaintiff got judgment, and, at a subsequent term, defendant moved to amend. From a judgment overruling the motion defendant appeals. Affirmed.
James M. Davison, for appellant.
Rabb & Stevens, for appellee.
The appellee, plaintiff in an action of trespass for an injury to lands, on the verdict of a jury, recovered judgment against the appellant, the defendant in the action, for six dollars the damages assessed by the jury, and full costs, the presiding judge not certifying that greater damages should have been awarded. At a subsequent term, the appellant moved to amend the judgment so that the recovery of costs should be limited to the amount of the damages assessed. The motion was overruled, and from the judgment overruling it the appeal is taken.
The statute (Code, § 2838) declares that "in all actions to recover damages for torts, *** the plaintiff recovers no more costs than damages, when such damages do not exceed twenty dollars, unless the presiding judge certifies that greater damages should have been awarded; and on failure to certify judgment must be rendered against the plaintiff for such residue." It is manifest the judgment is erroneous, and, on appeal, would have been reversed, and a judgment in conformity to the statute rendered. Reid v. Gordon, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 469; Galle v. Lynch, 21 Ala. 579; Tecumseh Co. v. Mangum, 67 Ala. 246. An application to amend a judgment is not the equivalent of an appeal, and cannot be made to perform its office. Clerical errors may be corrected by amendment after the expiration of the term at which a judgment was rendered; judicial errors, after the expiration of the term, are incapable of correction otherwise than by appeal. The judgment before us is that which the court pronounced. Thee was no error in its entry, and its correction at a subsequent term would be the exercise of revisory power by the court rendering it. If it were amended so as to conform to the statute, there must be added to it a judgment against the plaintiff for the residue of the costs, in excess of the damages recovered,-a judgment which ought to have been rendered, but was not, nor was it the purpose to render it. The power and duty of a court to correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Biddle, 8 Div. 661
...on their merits without question as to whether the statute applicable to appeals from any final judgment is available. Tippins v. Peters, 103 Ala. 196, 15 So. 564; Robertson v. King, 120 Ala. 459, 24 So. 929; McGowan v. Simmons, 185 Ala. 310, 64 So. 569; Campbell v. Beyers, 189 Ala. 307, 66......
- State v. Miller
- Afro-american Life Ins. Co. v. Jones
-
First Nat. Bank v. Garrison
...v. Wilmer, 69 Ala. 25, 44 Am.Rep. 501; Neale et al. v. Caldwell, 3 Stew. 134; Browder v. Faulkner, 82 Ala. 257, 3 So. 30; Tippins v. Peters, 103 Ala. 196, 15 So. 564; parte Favors, 225 Ala. 675, 145 So. 146; Ex parte Howard, Howard v. Ridgeway et al., 225 Ala. 106, 142 So. 403; Garrison v. ......