Zintgraff v. Sisney

• Decision Date: 09 August 1926
• Docket Number: No. 2932.,2932.
• Citation: 31 N.M. 564,249 P. 108
• Parties: ZINTGRAFFv.SISNEY et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

31 N.M. 564

249 P. 108

ZINTGRAFF

v.SISNEY et al.

No. 2932.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Aug. 9, 1926.

Syllabus by the Court.

“Law of the case” not properly invoked, where a different question is presented on second appeal.

Courts have power to amend their judgments to correct a clerical error in the name of a party (Code 1915, § 4167).

Pleading of former adjudication sufficient, if it shows scope of former adjudication and relation of parties to it.

Appeal from District Court, Guadalupe County; Leahy, Judge.

Action by T. H. Zintgraff against John T. Chapman and another on a note and to foreclose a mortgage, in which P. H. Sisney and another, doing business as Sisney & Dykes, and another, intervene. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed, and cause remanded.

Pleading of former adjudication is sufficient, if it shows scope of former adjudication and relation of parties to it.

F. Faircloth, of Santa Rosa, for appellant.

R. A. Prentice, of Tucumcari, for appellees.

WATSON, J.

A former appeal of this case is reported 27 N. M. 497, 202 P. 701, where the facts up to that time are set forth.

Pursuant to the mandate of this court, the foreclosure complaint was reinstated. Thereafter appellees, Sisney and Dykes, applied to the district court to correct the decree in the suit to quiet title. The application was granted and a new decree, dated July 17, 1922, was entered, differing from the former decree only in that the initials of defendant Zintgraff, appellant here, were changed from “J. H.” to “T. H.” Thereupon appellees were again permitted to intervene in the foreclosure suit and filed an answer as interveners, setting up the amended decree quieting the title, as a bar to the foreclosure suit. Appellant filed an answer in which he raised certain legal objections, upon the overruling of which judgment was entered upon the pleadings dismissing appellant's complaint. From this judgment the appeal was granted.

[1] Appellant's first contention is that appellees could not again litigate the question as to whether the foreclosure of the mortgage was barred by the suit to quiet title, because that question had already been determined by the former decision of this court, which was “the law of the case.”

The former decision involved only the legal proposition that a decree naming J. H. Zintgraff as defendant was not a bar to prosecution of a suit by T. H. Zintgraff; because the identity of the parties being denied, and there being no proof of it, neither the district court nor this court could presume it. The present record presents an entirely different situation, as the foregoing statement shows. As we understand the doctrine of “law of the case,” it is not applicable here.

[2] Appellant's next contention was that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, on July 17, 1922, to amend the original judgment of August 17, 1919, in the suit to quiet title. He urges that, under Fullen v. Fullen, 21 N. M. 212, 153 P. 294, the court lost jurisdiction over that judgment when it was rendered. It was indeed decided in that case that since we have no terms of court, except for disposing of jury cases, such power as the court had at common law to vacate its judgments during the term now ceases with the entry of the judgment. But it was expressly stated in that case that such powers over its judgments as the court could at common law exercise after term, it still retains. Such a power is that invoked in Crichton v. Storz, 20 N. M. 195, 147 P. 916, to amend in any material point as to which there could have been no doubt of the right, and the omission of which was inadvertent. Void judgments remain within the control of the court at all times. Upjohn v. County Commissioners, 25 N. M. 526, 185 P. 279. So, also, the court may modify a judgment “so as to correct what was evidently a purely clerical error.” U. S. v. Irrigation Co., 13 N. M. 386, 85 P. 393. In the last-mentioned case, subsection 85 of the Code (Code 1915, § 4167) was cited as authority for the amendment; but the court might have relied for the ruling upon the general power of courts to correct clerical errors in judgments to make them speak the truth and represent the judgment actually pronounced. 34 C. J. 229; 15 Standard Ency. of Proc. 118; 5 Ency. of Pl. and Pr. 1053; 15 R. C. L. 679. The authority last mentioned, at page 680, considering “application of rule,” says:

“A judgment may...