Case ID: minor_1/html/0170-01.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

Fugua and Hewitt against Carriel and Martin.
    DECEMBER, 1823.
    1, Judgment non pro tunc entered without notice.
    2. A note payable at a future day with interest from the date, if not punctually only from its maturity.
    
      JOHN D. CARRIEL and John Martin brought an actiore of Debt in the Circuit Court of Franklin, against Ephraim Fugua and Thomas Hewitt,, on their Bill single, dated 4tb 6ay December, 1818, for the payment of $470, twelve months after date, “ to bear interest from the date if not punctually paid.” The writ was returned, and declaration filed at February term, 1820. At the next term, the defendants withdrawing their plea, judgment by nil dicit was entered for the Debt and $21t\3-j Damages. At April term, 1821, (being the next after the judgment above mentioned) an entry in the cause was made, correcting the judgment as to the amount of the interest, and judgment nunc pro tunc entered for the Debt and $62-&\ Damages..
    
      Fugua and Hewitt prosecuted a writ of Error: the matter assigned as Error appears in the
    
      Coalter, for plaintiffs in Error
    cited, as to 1st point, 1 Hen. and Munfd. 25. 4 Munfd. 299,300. As to 2d point, 1 Hen. Bla. 232. 3 Bos. and E, 346, IWash. 119. 1 Gilmer.
    
      Martin, for defendants in Error.
   Opinion of the Court delivered by

Judge Crenshaw.

We have no hesitation in saying that the Circuit Court had power to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc; and that urn der the circumstances of this case, notice to the opposite party was not necessary; for if there was any mistake in em-te ring the judgment,, it was a mistake apparent from the Record, and the amendment was made at the earliest opr portunity after its occurrence, viz. at the first term after the judgment. But the judgment, as the entry stands amended, appears to include interest from the date to the maturity of the Note. This, in an instrument of this description, is in the nature of a penalty, and not recoverable, as bas béén settled at this term, On this ground the jadgment must be reversed, and judgment rendered here for the principal and interest thereon, from the maturity of the Note. In this opinion the Court are unanimous. 
      
      
         Dinsmore vs. Hand, p. 126.