Case ID: minor_1/html/0357-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge Crenshaw\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Myrick against Chamblain and Darling.
    DECEMBER, 1824.
    1, After joinder in error the Court will not, unless required by the obvious justice of the case, grant leave to file additional assignment of Errors.
    2, Omission of entry of continuance in the Record is cured by subsequent appearance of the party.
    DECLARATION in assumpsit by defendants against plaintiff in Error filed in Mobile Circuit Court at November term, 1821. Plea, non assumpsit. Next follows in the Record continued on suggestion of defendant at May term, 1823—November term 1823 continued, there being no court —February special term 1824, “ This day came the parties by their attornies,” &c.; then follows a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs in the usual form. Myrick assigned here as Error—that the Court rendered judgment after discontinuance ; to which there was a joinder in Error.
    
      Acre, for plaintiff in Error,
    now moved for leave to file an additional assignment, which was resisted by Ruffin for defendants in Error. If this motion should be overruled, they submitted the case on the error assigned.
   Judge Crenshaw

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Court will not extend its discretionary power to aid in reversing a judgment. After assignment and joinder ip Error, nothing but the obvious justice of the case would induce the Court to receive an additional assignment. We do not believe that the justice of the present case makes it necessary.

If there was a discontinuance, the defect was waived by the subsequent appearance of the defendant in the action.

It is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the judgment be affirmed.