Case ID: us-ct-cl_39/html/0548-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Brown", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES GAGNON v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [38 C. Cls. R., 10; 193 U. S. R., 451.]
    
      On the claimants Appeal.
    
    The claimant, averring that he was naturalized in a district court in Nebraska and that the record thereof can not be found, applies to the same court to have a record of his naturalization entered nunc pro tuno thirty-three years after the event. There is no record or part of record or memorandum of any description showing the naturalization referred to. The fact is shown entirely by parol testimony. The court allows the application and orders that the judgment be entered at large on the journal of the court nunc pro tunc as of the date aforesaid.
    The court below decides;
    .1. When it appears that a decree of naturalization, which in 1897 is ordered 'to be entered and spread upon the record as of 1863, was based entirely upon oral testimony, it must be held that the action of the court was not authorized by law, but was in legal effect an original order which could not be entered as of a prior date.
    2. During the term the record is in the breast of the court. After the term, where justice requires it, courts will allow amendments notwithstanding that the record is made up and the term passed if the suit is pending.
    3. To justify an amendment nunc pro time there must be something to amend by. Where there is no record or memorandum of any kind to show that a former order existed a court is without jurisdiction to enter a judgment, or order, nunc pro tunc as of a prior term.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 21, 1904.