The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1885-04-22
oouI. Of law is within tn, povsr Of The Court

Court Of Law is within the Puwer Of the Court
itself.
Says Chief Justice Bellows IN Adams rs.
Adams, 81 n. Il 3e6: "As general prcpo-
sition, Courts have power TO set aside, vacaie,
modify or amend their judgments for good
cause shown. Il is settled that indg-
ments may be set aside or vacated when pro-
cured by fraud. Also that Judgment
may be vacated or the record Of it amended on
the ground that it was entered up ty mistake,
even after more than eleven years after the
Judgment was rendered"
Courts Of equity will not set aside or modify
judgments Of Court Of law for an irregu.
larity, nor for mistake in the rule upon which
Judgment was rendered. When the Court has
power as Court Of law to correct its judy
ments, the Court in equity will not intervene.
B.ii0rs Is. Stone, Il \. II. 2O3. A Court in
equity will not enjoin party from proceeding
on his Judgment on the ground Of mistake Of
proceeding or error in the Judgment of tue
Court Of law. Grounds for the interference Of
Court Of equity are fraud, inevitable acci-
dent OF mistake, newly discovered matter since
the trial. equitable defences which could not
be made at law StOry's Eq. Jur. Sec. 1872 }.
Lynne vs.. Allen. 81 y. IL. 2i2. Higgins rs
King, } Barb. SIC.
In Freeman on Judgments, Sections 60 e.
SCI, the Eubiect OF amending judgments is
discussed with ample citation Of authorities
1t IS within the power Of the Court to amend
the record TO show thst the recovery was Tor
or against party il representative cAarac-
ter. In A!IiEs Is. SllFysF, Pick. 35l, a judg-
ment against the defendant as administrator
instead Of against the goods Of the estate Of
the iutestate was allowed TO be amended BY
suo;her part Of the record upon motion. In
Bars rs. Shannon, 10 y. Y. 2gT, when iudc-
ment fails to show explicitly that it is against
the party in his representative capacity Il NAV
be amended by motion. The rule that the record
admits Of no alteration after the term is obsn-
leie, is the statement in Freeman on Judg-
ments, Sec. II, although the method Of eslab-
liIhing right to ar amendment varies some
what in the English and American Courts and
in the Courts Of different American States.
| think it can hardly lie dOnbted that il will be
held unnecessary for party TO 90 into equity
| for relief from the consequences OF a Judgment
which should be entered in such terms that
levy nigh! l,e made upon different estate
from that which, upon examination Of the whole
record, should appear 10 be charged with the
judgment The Judgment in common law ac-
tiors is drawn in formal terms by the clerk,
and may not express accurately the real juds-
/ HANNA W aAN NouAA- II lAAA Alltl ut Aultlltu
| by that Court without resource 10 the inter
Tention Of another
The bill before me present., none Oi the
grounds Ct fraud. The allegation Of the bill is
simply that the plaintiffs are not liable or re-
Spousible for the payment Of the amount Of
damages awarded except in their representa-
tive capacity. But the whole matter was be-
fore the Court upon the lease, and the COM
plant 0! those plaintiffs. What was the liza
bility Of the defendants in that case (now
plaintiffs) was matter Of law and fact to he
determined by the Court aud jury, subject to
appeals on eEceF.uEs, -ErE. aud lthsr methods
of review. II the Court lad Jurisdiction and if
10 ground appears why there should be an in
reference by the Court in equity, none will be
made. II there were an equitable ground
shown, from circumstances Of which the Court
in equity alone has or can take cOgnizancc, the
interference would be only with the parties.
1t would not supervise the Court Of law and
modify It's record, as here pTayed for. Stoy's
Eq. Jur. Sec. SIS and Sec 1871.
In this view of the case the bill must be
dismissed.
Attorney General Neumann for plaintiffs; A,
S. Hartwell and W. Il. Austin for defendants
Honolulu, April 80, 1855.