Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-01
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
0RFTCLAL.
Decisions OF the supreme Court OF the
state Oh tennessee at Nashville, De.
ccmber Term, 1860.

DecisAOns oH the supreme Court OF the
s'a'e .. Hennessee at Nashville, De-
cember Term, 1860.
Elliottst. ais. vs.. Cochran and others.
| This is an application to correct a mistake made
in decree in this cause pronoupced nv This Court
st its December Term, 1857. This cause first came
| before this Court at its December Tepm 1s55
and is reported IN Sneed, 46e Where II was beld
that the sale OF the slaves Edmund Caty and Eliza
beth, by the decree of the Court of Chancerv nnde
the act of 1927 81, Sec 2 the instance of the
creditors of James Elliott, deceased withont bo,
his legaees parties before the Court was void and
| that therefore, the defendant Cochran, the mr.
chaser, acquired no title to said slaves The com.
| planants-the legatees-were allowed to recover
said slaves with proper hire but were required Ia
refund the purchase money so far the same had
| been received by them, appropriated to their
or benefit; and the cause was remanded, to the
| end that all proper accounts might be taken and
| the equitees of the respective parties adjusted
When the cause again by appeal to this Coz r al
the Term first above named and on the 22d of Jaa
| uary, 1858, a decree was given, wherein it was
stated, "that it appeared to the Satisfaction of thS
Court tnat the decree of the Chancellor IN disalow
ing the compliments hire for said slaves was erro
neous-the same not being sustained by the proof
| The decree of the Chancellor was therefore re-
versed and the Clerk of this Court directed restat
the account between the parties AMI to charge the
| said Cochran for the hire of Edmund and Caty
| at the rate Of $50 90 per annum 1cil
/ Cochran took them into his possession in
February 1887, down to the taking of the account
and to charge said Cochran with the hire of Eliza
beth at the rate of $1,000 per ana1n l1ih ike inter
est, from the beginning OF the year 1916, down to
tue taking OF the account, and also that he should
| charge compliments with the money paid Cochran
for said slaves 1rh simple interest thereon from the
time he paid the till the taking of SAID account
and that execution should issue for the balance
found against either party The clerk Immediately
l nd mada i, Il
the money and interest to be credited to the defend
| ant Cochran, were charged as directed in the de-
cree but as to the hire of the salyes he not only
omitted to calculate interest thereon at annual rate
but failed to charge interest altogether save for one
year on each annual hire the result of which was
that the balance, instead of being in favor of the
compliments was against them to the amount OF
| Sl98.6O. No exceptions were taken to the report
| and on the 25th of January, three days after the
| original decree. final decree was made in con
| formity to said report ordering an execution II
issue against the compainapts in favor of Cochran
for the Sl98GO. 1t does not appear that this ois-
sion as to the interest, and its mode of calculation
was known to the parties on their counsel, until
after the adjournment of the time of the court al
which the nal decree was rendered an we are "a.
| tlstled 1t was not. The mistake was apparent on
inspection of the original and final DEGREES and The
| report, and was obviously made by the clerk in
stating the account and escaped the detection of this
| court, intending the final decree.
This more clearly appears from the fact, that the
clerk, in his report assumes to state the hire with
| interest thereon at annual rates. from the period
fixed in the decree and in precise conformity there
to; whereas, IN reality, after stating the hire for
each consecutive year, and the interest for year
on each annual hire and that the next after its ae-
crUa he omits altogether the residue of the inter-
est. And this Court, in its final decree also as
sumes that the report CT the clerk had been made as
directed in the original decree, and that complain
ants had been credited for the hire of said slaves
| with interest on the same at annual rates.
On the 18th of March, 1858 after the term Of the
| court had passed cOmplainants having discovered
the mistake, obtained from one of the judges of this
| court superseadeas to stay the execution of the
decree, and at the following term made application
to have the said mistake corrected; and which ap-
plcatlon has been held under Amusement until this
time. And the question is, whether this court has
\ the power to correct said mistake. We are of
| opinion we have. In the act of 1856 20. Sec.2
1t Is declared that the Circuit Court Chancery and
Supreme Courts Of this State shall hereafter have
| power to correct all mistakes apparent upon the
face OF the record at any term after final judgment:
said power to be exercised at the discretion OF said
courts. This section. with some changes of phrase
| oOgy, Is carried into the code. at sections 2877
/ and 2S7S-section 2S77 provided that the Cir
| cult, Chancery and Supreme Courts may at
any time within three month"; after final
| judgment decree, and while the cause is still in
| such courts, amend any clerical error, mistake IN
/ the calculation of interest, or other mistake or
omission in the judgment or decree, when there is
sufficient matter apparent the record, the papers
/ IN the cause, or entries of a presiding Judge to
/ amend by. And section 2STS, that every mistake
apparent on the face of the record may be CORRECTED
| by the Court at any time, after final judgment at
the discretion of the Court The next section of the
| code, as well as the act of 1856 makes provision
for giving the adverse party notice of the intended
application to correct the mistake where the
has been finally disposed of-and the parties are
therefore not before the Court. This case now be-
fore Us having originated anterior to the code must
/ be decided upon the law as it exists when /: took
effect, and we will not determine whether in
legal effect, there be any difference between is pro-
| visions and the act of 1856. We do not perceive
that the common law powers Of this Court have
| been enlarged by the latter act; and whether
they have been abridged or not weneed not decide
as seems to US the correction no sought is allow
| able both by the acI and tile common law The al
iteration Of the records of this Court involves much
of deiicacy and should be cautiously and sparingly
made. No appeal lies fFem It's judgments or de-
crees. nor can they be reviewed or reheard ats
| the adjournment of the term at which they are
pronounced. Overton VS.. Bigelow's admir-, 10 Yer
ger As, 80. There must of necessity, be an end tn
| litimation somewhere. To permit them to be OMEN
ed again and again and discussed as often IS a real
| or imaginary in the judgment OF the Court in
point of law, or in conclusions of facts might be
| discovered would be intoeFably vexatious. As to
grievances eId complaints of this sort the iu(Ig-
ments and decree of this Court must necessarily be
nnal. But upon principle, it has always be en- allow
ed 20 correct the mere GSt2ke The clerk. when it
was apparent uial the face CT the record. Lord
| Mansfield states the distinction in ShCrt vs. Coffin
1Er. 4 Burrow 2I30. The case Of Rees VS.. Morgan.
3 T. r. 349, in the Court OF Kings Beneh and the
cases of Burr ys. Reeve, Johns, r. 5O7 Close vs.
| Gillespie, do 526, and the Mechanics Bank VS.
Minthorne, 10 do, must have gone upon the same
distinction. so also the in our own reports
| OF Farrls VS.. Fitzpatrick, HUMP. S59, and Ridge
way and others VS.. Ward, do. 400. In Burr w.
Reeve the motion was to yGrate the assessment Oh
damages made oy tae csere and that he be ordered
to assess the anew, there being an evident
mistake IN the calculation The Court declared the
mistake was apparent and must be corrected In
the Mechanics Bank VS.. MnthOrne, after an inter-
locutory Judgment the default of the defendant
for want of plea in action against the endoT
OF promissory note, the clerk of the Court made
mistake N the assessment Of the damages hy Gslcu
latlng the rent for year less than the actual
time, and the attorney OF the PLAINTIFF without OBJ
serving the mistake Aied tee report of the assess
ment and catered final lU0gnent thereon and on re-
Geiying payment OF the amount Of damages and
costs, according to such assessment acknowledged
satisfaction of the Judgment which was entered of
record but afterwards on paying the'moRey over to
the plaintiff the mistake was discovered but the de-
PENDANT refused to reetify it, The Court on motion
for that purpose ordered the entry of satisfaction
OF the Judgment, and all the proceedings in the
cause subsequent to the interlocutory Judgment a.
be vacated, and the report of the Clerk os the as
sessment OF damages, the record ol tEe Judgment
and the satisfaction thereof TO be taken off the files
OF the Court and cancelled and the damages to be
Fp-asse5sed BY the Clerk, allowing the defendant
credit for the amount paid by him. 1t seems to me
that these authorities, as well as the Get of lS5G
sustain the motion to correct the mistake, and that
the correction is an inevitable consequence of the
decree of 1885, the report of the Clerk and final de-
cree showing the error. As to the errors Ia the
Judgment OF the Court IN point of law existiag in
the decree upon which the renoEs u based, or in
unwarranted deductions Of faeS-if any such there
be COMPLAINED af by she defendants counsel-they
upon the principles already stated in this opinion
are beyond our reach-the law of the decree az
well az its conclusions upon the testimony in the
cause constitute the deliberate Judgment of this
Court in the case and cannot now be changed. They
do not stand upon the sane ground as the clerical
errors, omigSiORs of the Clerk the motion to cor
rect MGEt DC allowed, but at compliments cost.
WRIGHT.
Correct copy: p. CLARK, Clerk.