Case ID: scl_20/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David S. Patton, adm’r. v. H. G. Massey.
    
      Before Mr. Justice Earle, York, Fall Term, 1834.
    Where the Clerk, in assessing- the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff (under the act of 1809,) made a mistake in computing the interest, whereby the judgment was entered for a sum less than was due, the error may be corrected, and the judgement and execution amended, altho’ the sheriff liad collected the ain’t, called for in the execution, and marked it ‘satis-
    
      This was a rule on the defendant to shew cause why the Clerk should not assess the amount actually due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and that the judgement and execution be amended accordingly, it appearing that the clerk, on the reference to him, had made a mistake in the calculation of interest, by reason of which the judgement was entered up and the execution issued, for a sum less than was due by about $200. On the return of the rule, it appeared that the sheriff had collected the amount stated in the execution, gave a receipt in full to the defendant, and paid over the money to the plaintiff. Th.eji.fa. itself still remained in the hands of the sheriff, endorsed “Satisfied,” but no sworn return thereon. His Honor held that it was too late to amend ; that the case did not come within any of the cases on the subject, and certainly not within the rule laid down in the Bank of Pennsylvania v. Condy, 1 Hill 209. The rule was discharged, and the motion to amend refused. The plaintiff appealed on the ground of error in this decision.
    
      Hill, for the motion.
    The duty of the clerk under the act of 1809, 1 Brev. Dig. 120, in assessing the amount actually ¿¡ue on liquidated demands, is merely ministerial, and any mistake of his may be corrected under the Stat, 8 Hen. 6, c. 12, which authorises the Court to correct the misprisions of its clerks, 2 Arch. Pract. 231. 245. The presiding judge limits the right of amendment to the time of satisfaction. The old cases restrict the right of amendment to the proceedings whilst m fieri, before they are enrolled and engrossed, when they become strictly records. Before this, at common law, the Courts could amend, and they were authorised to amend after that, by the Statutes of Jeofails. But whatever once may have been the practice, it is now settled by repeated decisions here and in England, that the records of the Court may at any stage be amended, so as to subserve the ends of justice. 3 Salk. 31, 4 Taunt. 322, 3 John. 144, 5 John. 89. A ca. sa. was amended by altering the sum in the writ, after the defendant was in execution : 2T. R. 737 ; and by inserting costs which had been omitted, 2 N. & M’C. 58 ; and even after a sale, 3 M’C. 142. ; Giles v. Pratt, 1 Hill, 239 ; and where the sum was too large, 1 Hill, 209 ; andJi. fa. de bonis iestaloris, amended to de bonis propriis, 1 Hill, 167 ; and (a case in point) where an execution tvas amended after it had been returned satisfied: Phelps v. Ball, 1 Johnson’s Cases, 31. See also 18 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 236 ; 2 Ohitty Rep. 24; Campbell & Chambers v. Rochelle, 1 M’C. Ch. 53. There is no limit to the right of amendment except that of time, which, in the case of a judgement, may be twenty years.
    
      Williams, contra.
   Johnson, J.

The case stated in the report, is, that the clerk, in assessing the sum actually due by the defendant to the plaintiff, made .a mistake in computing the interest, by means whereof the judgement is entered up for a sum less than was actually due to the plaintiff by about $200, and the cases cited in support of the motion shew, I think very clearly, that "this is one of those mistakes, in the discharge of a mere ministerial, duty which is amendable according to the established usage of the Court; and I take it as universally true, that it is inherent in the power of any Court to correct the errors of its ministerial agents, so as to subserve the ends of justice. And with great deference for the opinion of my brother Piarle, I am utterly unable to perceive in what this case differs in principle from the case of the Bank of Pennsylvania v. Condy, (1 Hill, 209,) unless indeed it be that the power to amend there was more questionable than it is here. There, the jury, by mistake in the calculation of interest, found too great a sum for the plaintiff, which was apparent on the face 'of the proceeding, and notwithstanding that was the finding of a jury exercising judicial powers, the Court was of opinion that it was amendable. Here, a similar error was committed by the clerk, acting ministerially in relation to the same matter (the calculation of interest,) and if the judgement is amendable in one instance, I cannot perceive why it should not be so in the other. The case of the Mechanics’ Bank v. Menthorne, (19 Johnson, 244,) is precisely this case. There, as in this case, the damages were assessed by the clerk, probably in conformity with some statute of the State ef New York .corresponding with our own, and by mistake he computed the interest at one year less than the true time, and the attorney, not observing the mistake, entered up the judgement for the amount assessed, and on receiving the amount of damages thus assessed, and the costs, entered satisfaction on the judgement, and it was notwithstanding held, that the judgement was amendable by inserting the true sum, and it was so ordered : the Court founding its judgement upon the duty and power of the Court to correct the acknowledged error of its officer, and the propriety of doing that equity to which the party would be entitled in a Court of Chancery.

Motion granted.

O’Neall and Harper, Js. concurred.