Ullery v. Clark

• Decision Date: 24 October 1851
• Citation: 18 Pa. 148
• Parties: Ullery <I>versus</I> Clark.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

18 Pa. 148

Ullery versus Clark.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 24, 1851.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Greene county.

Watson, for plaintiff in error.

Black and Howell, contrà.

The opinion of the Court was delivered, Oct. 24, by CHAMBERS, J.

The judgment was entered by the Court below on the verdict for the plaintiff, for $321.50, without costs. In this judgment the plaintiff below acquiesces, and on 25th May, 1848, places an exemplification of the record of the same, on the record of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington county, and to August Term, 1848, issues execution against defendant for debt, interest, and costs, to which the sheriff returns a receipt on the writ by plaintiff's attorney, for debt, interest, plaintiff's bill, and jury fee. On the 16th February, 1850, the Court of Common Pleas of Greene, on the application of the plaintiff, directs judgment to be entered with costs. The writ of error from this Court brings up the whole record embracing the two judgments, with the proceedings on the first. This Court of error and review has authority, and it is their duty to correct existing errors on the record which are complained of, and have power to reform, as well as to affirm or reverse: Stephens v. Cowan, 6 Watts 511. The first judgment of the Court below being on a general verdict that was good, was erroneous in the entry without costs, as ruled in Remely v. Kuntz, 10 Barr 180.

In the entry by the same Court of the second judgment, nearly two years after the entry of the first judgment, in directing judgment to be entered with costs, there was an assumption of power not possessed by that Court. In the case of Stephens v. Cowan, referred to, it was ruled, in the opinion delivered by Justice KENNEDY, "that after the end of a term in which the Court has rendered judgment on a case stated, on a special or general verdict, from which an appeal may be taken by writ of error or otherwise, it cannot alter or change it, with a view to correct what the Court upon further reflection may consider error therein. But it would be going too far to say, that such Court may not afterwards, before any proceeding is had on the judgment, correct a mere mistake that has arisen in entering it differently from what was intended, and perhaps directed:" Ib. 513. In this case the entry of the second judgment with costs, is not to correct an error committed in expressing what was intended or directed, but after an interval of nearly two years to...