Wilson v. Boughton

• Decision Date: 31 March 1872
• Citation: 50 Mo. 17
• Parties: JOHN E. C. WILSON, Appellant, v. BENJAMIN F. BOUGHTON et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

50 Mo. 17

JOHN E. C. WILSON, Appellant,

v.BENJAMIN F. BOUGHTON et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1872.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Jos. J. Williams, for appellant.

The petition sets forth a clear case of mistake, together with such a state of facts as show that the judgment rendered in the former case ought not to be allowed to operate as a bar to a recovery of the balance due on the note. (1 Sto. Eq., § 166; Boon et al. v. Miller's Ex'rs, 16 Mo. 457; see remarks of Lord Redesdale in Bateman v. Welloe, quoted in 10 Mo. 102.)

Abner Green, for respondents.

When a case has been once tried at law, and a party through a want of reasonable diligence has failed to obtain such judgment as he thinks he is entitled to, equity will leave him to bear the consequences of his own negligence. (1 Sto. Eq., § 146; 2 Sto. Eq., §§ 887, 896-7; Watson v. Field & Cathcart, 10 Mo. 100.)

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs brought suit on a note against the defendants, to which no answer or defense was put in; and at the March term, 1870, a judgment by default was rendered against the defendants on this note for $405.55, when in truth the real amount then due, including the interest, was $507.80. The attorney who was attending to the case made a mistake in calculating the interest on the note, and when the case was called for judgment, the judge, without calculating the amount due, asked the attorney, who, being under a mistake himself, replied $405.55, and the judgment was rendered by mistake for that amount, when it should have been for $507.80. Most of the judgment has been paid. The mistake, it seems, was not discovered during the term, and the plaintiff brings this suit in the nature of a suit in equity to correct the alleged mistake by compelling the defendants to pay the amount that was left out of the judgment by mistake. The defendants demurred to the petition upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to grant any relief where there had been a mistake of that kind.

It is clearly established in this State that where a matter has been once litigated or adjudicated it cannot be reopened in another suit at law or in equity. Nor can error or mistake in a judgment be corrected in a court of law after the lapse of the term at which the judgment was rendered. (See Ashley v. Glasgow, 7 Mo. 320; Caldwell v. Lockridge, 9 Mo. 368; Hill v. City of St. Louis, 20 Mo. 584; Smith v. Best, 42 Mo. 185.)

But...