Case ID: ga_35/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Walker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. D. Mahone, plaintiff in error, vs. T. D. Perkinson, defendant in error.
    A Court has power to amend its judgments and executions so as to make them conform to the verdicts upon which they are predicated.
    Motion. In Cherokee Superior Court. Decided by Judge Milner. November, 1866.
    At September Term, 1863, of Cherokee Superior Court, a verdict was rendered in favor of Perkinson, against Mahone, on an attachment sued out by the former against the latter and levied upon certain lands. Nothing had occurred toontitle the plaintiff in attachment to enter up a general judgment on said verdict. Nevertheless, he did enter such a j rdgment, and the Clerk issued thereon, against Mahone, a general fi. fa. This fi. fa. was levied upon the lands on which the attachment had been levied. The lands were sold by the Sheriff by virtue of said levy, and Perkinson became the purchaser. A large balance appearing still to be due on the fi. fa., it was subsequently levied on other property, real and personal.
    Before this last levy was disposed of, to-wit, at the September Term, 1866, of Cherokee Superior Court, counsel for Mahone moved to set aside both the judgment and the fi. fa. Pending this motion, and at the same Term of the ¡Court, counsel for Perkinson moved to amend the judgment.
    By consent of parties both motions were heard by Judge Milner, in November, 1866, who disposed of them together, overruling the motion to set aside the judgment, and ordering and adjudging that the plaintiff have leave to amend the judgment by changing the same from a general judgment in personam to a judgment in rem upon the property on which the attachment was levied ; and that the fi. fa be annuled and set aside, and a new fi. fa issued in conformity to the judgment as amended. ,
    Mahone assigns for error the refusal to set aside the judgment, and the granting of leave to amend it.
    
      Lester, for plaintiff in error.
    Hansell and Bleckley; for defendant.
   Walker, J.

The judgment in this case is affirmed, for the reasons that the judgment was incorrectly entered np, Code, sec. 3241; and the Court had the power, and it was his duty, to amend the judgment and execution, so as to make them conform to the legal effect of the verdict: Sections 3424-5.