Case ID: mass_62/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dewey, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Addison Fay vs. John Wenzell.
    In a case in the court of common pleas, in which, after verdict and before judg ment, a motion was made for a new trial, the following minutes were made at different terms on the clerk’s docket: “ Verdict set aside and new trial granted,” and “ Judgment on the verdict.” It was held, that that court, at a subsequent term, on being satisfied by parol evidence that these minutes were erroneous and made by mistake, might cause them to be erased, and enter judgment on the verdict.
    At the December term, 1848, of the court of common pleas, this action, which was assumpsit on a promissory note, was tried, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial, as appears by a written motion filed in the case, because the verdict was against the evidence, and also on account of newly discovered evidence. No entry of such motion appears on the docket; but at the same term of the court, there is an entry upon it in the foliowring words: “ Verdict set aside and new trial granted.” The action was then continued from term to term, to the December term, 1849, on the docket of which term, there is an entry as follows : “ Judgment on the verdict; ” and the action was thence continued from term to term to the December term, 1850.
    At that term, the plaintiff" produced, from the file of papers in the case, the written motion of the defendant for a new trial, with an indorsement thereon, made by the judge before whom the motion was argued, directing in substance that the motion should be overruled and judgment be entered upon the verdict; and the plaintiff thereupon moved that judgment be rendered upon his aforesaid verdict. To this the defend' ant objected, because it appeared from the entry on the docket of December term, 1848, that the verdict had been set aside and a new trial granted.
    The plaintiff contended that the entry was erroneous and had been made by mistake; and he offered to the court parol evidence thereof, in addition to the written motion and the indorsement thereon.
    The defendant insisted that the memorandum on the docket constituted a record of the proceedings in the case; and denied the authority of the court to alter and annul the record of the doings of the court at a former term; and objected to the competency of the evidence offered by the plaintiff to prove the alleged errors and mistakes. But the presiding judge [Merrick, J.) overruled the objections, and received the evidence, and passed, and directed to be entered on the docket, the following order: “ And now it appearing to the court here, that the entry on the docket at the December term, 1848, ‘ Verdict set aside and new trial granted,’ is erroneous and was made by mistake, and that no such order was ever made by the court, it is now ordered that the said minute be struck out and erased, and it also further appearing that the entry in the docket at the December term, 1849, ‘Judgment on the verdict ’ is erroneous, and that the same ought to be arrested, it is ordered by the court here that the said minute be. struck out and erased. And now at the present term of the court, it is ordered and determined by the court, that the motion of the defendant for a new trial be overruled and disallowed, and that judgment be now entered on the verdict.”
    The defendant alleged exceptions to the rulings of the presiding judge.
    
      B. F. Butler, for the defendant.
    Parol evidence was not admissible to contradict the record. Sayles v. Briggs, 4 Met. 421; Kendall v. Powers, 4 Met. 553; Wolfe v. Martin, 1 How. Miss. 30; Ludlow v. Johnston, 3 Hamm. 553; Wade v. Odeneal, 3 Dev. 423; Reid v. Kelly, 1 Dev. 313. The action of the court upon a motion is final and conclusive, unless reversed on appeal or exceptions ; and the same court at another term cannot enter a different order, or correct the record from its memory. Ellis v. Madison, 1 Shepl. 312: State v. Smith, 1 Nott & McCord, 13; State v. Fields, Peck, 140 ; Commonwealth v. Cawood, 2 Virg. Cas. 527; Hall v. Williams, 1 Fairf. 278; State v. Calhoon, 1 Dev. & Bat. 374; Freeland v. Field, 6 Call, 12.
    (7. fZ. Train, for the plaintiff.
   Dewey, J.

Full effect is given to the clerk’s docket, as a record or statement of the orders of the court, until the record is fully extended. But it is open to amendment by order of the court. So also the extended record may itself be amended, by order of the court whose proceedings are recorded, when found not in accordance with the facts. Errors of this kind may occur, and if they do, the power to amend them according to the truth exists in the court. In the present case the court of common pleas had the power to order this amendment of the record. The amount and kind of evidence requisite to satisfy that court, as to what was the real order of the court, and what was the proper entry on the docket or extended record, must rest with that court. Having the authority to correct their own record, it is to be presumed that any amendment of the record made by them will be in accordance with the facts. Bacon v. Lincoln, 2 Cush. 124; Bank of Newburgh v. Seymour, 14 Johns. 219; Holmes v. Remson, 2 Cow. 410; Marsh v. Berry, 7 Cow. 344; Balch v. Shaw, 7 Cush. 282.

The cases cited by the counsel for the defendant were mostly cases where the question of controverting the record as erroneous arose collaterally, but in the present case it was directly between the parties, on a motion to amend the record. The power to amend clearly existed, and we must presume it was properly exercised.

Exceptions overruled.