Case ID: ill-app_20/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 122—2392.
    Frost v. Harzfield.
    A replevin suit was brought by appellants against appellees, and goods taken on the replevin writ. Afterward appellants dismissed their replevin suit, and thereupon the court ordered a retorno habendo, and entered judgment in favor of Edward Harzfield, Albert Harzfield and Samuel Friend, for the sum of $86, as damages for the detention of the goods. At the time this judgment was entered there had been no service on the three defendants, in whose favor it was rendered, and no appearance had been entered for them. The court had no authority to enter such a judgment. A supplementary record has been filed in this court, showing that at a subsequent term, and so far as appears from the record, without notice, the court entered an order directing that the judgment order originally entered in said cause should read so as to show the judgment to have been entered in favor of defendant Hanehett, instead of the other defendants. The court was without power to make such an amendment of the record at a subsequent term. Baragwanath v. Wilson, 4 Bradwell, 80; Trautman v. Hills, 5 Bradwell, 396.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed Aug. 6, 1886.
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judge below, John G. Rogers. Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Saunders & Grant; for appellee, Messrs. Flower, Remy & Gregory.