Case ID: johns-cas_2/html/0065-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stafford against Van Zandt.
    Where a cause in the common pleas had been referred, and a judgment was entered for ninty-nine cents more than the sunr reported by the referees to be due, the judgment, on a writ of error, was reversed.
    This cause came before the court, on a writ of error, from the Mayor’s Court of Albany.
    By the record it appeared, that the action in the court below had been referred to referees, who had reported a sum due to the plaintiff below, who is the defendant here, and that the judgment in the court below, was given for ninty-nine cents more than the amount reported to be due by the referees. This was assigned for error, with several other matters, which were not particularly noticed by the court.
    
      Emott, for the plaintiff.
    
      Ten Broedc, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The variance between the sum reported by the referees and the amount of the judgment, is a fatal error. Without expressing an opinion on the other points, let the judgment for this cause be reversed.

Judgment reversed.() 
      
      (a) The judgment ought to follow the finding of the referee or of the jury. See Brown v. Chase, 4 Mass. R. 436. Hence in Bent v. Patten, 1 Rand. 25, it was decided that an error in entering up judgment as to the rate of interest, was not merely a clerical error, but one which could only be rectified by an appellate court; see also, Hayton v. Hope, 3 Mis. 53. As to correcting judgments docketed by mistake for less than the true sum; see Hunt v. Grant, 19 Wend. 90.