Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-18
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for Virginian-Piiot.)
BAKER v. SwINEFORD.

Supreme Court of Appeals Of Virginia.
June 10, 1899.
CODE. SECTION 5000. AUTHORIZING
COURTS TO ISSUE EXECUTION
ON JUDGMENTS BEFORE THE
END OF THE TERM DOES NOT
DEPRIVE THE COURTS OF THE
POWER DURING THE TERN TO
CORRECT. AMEND OR SET ASIDE
SUCH JUDGMENTS.
Baker instituted an action Of detinue
to recover certain notes, which was SO
proceeded in that Il Judgment was rem
dered for the pllintim for the proper
ty demanded, or it's alternate value,
which was ascertained to be $1,6S0. with
interest. Fifteen days having elapsed
since the beginning of the term at
which this judgment was rendered. the
court entered an order by virtue of
section 5000 of the Code, permitting eX-
ecutions to issue on judgments Of thai
term after the lapse of 10 days from
their date. Mrs. Baker, the PLAINTIFF in
error. issued an execution for the alter
nate value as set out IN the judgment
obtained by her, whercupon Swineford
gave notice of "a motion TO vaca.e sad
Judgment. This motion was resisted,
but the court entered an order setting
aside the Judgment and granting the
defendant new trial, TO all of which
the plaintiff excepted. At subsequent
trial there was verdict and judgment
for the defendant. and plaintiff appeal
ed.
The Court says:
Did the court have the power to set
aside Judgment upon which it had di-
rected execution to issue by virtue of
section 5000 OF the Code? That sec
ton is in the following words:
Any court, after the fifteenth day of
us term, may make IL general order al
lowing executions to issue on judy-
mentS and DEGREES after ten days from
their date, although the term MT which
they are rendered be not ended For
special cause, IL may, in any particular
case, except the same from such
order. or allow an execution there OH
ut an earlier period"
Upon the part of the plaintiff In CIR
ror, 1t Is contended that inasmuch as
at common law no execution could
issue except upon final Judgment,
that statute authorizing the issue of
an execution necessarily operates to
impart the quality of flnalfty to it, so
mat II, upon the expiration of the ff-
teenth day Of It's term, n court eSer-
ciscs the power conferred upon it by
section $780, above cited, all judgments
upon which an execution is authorized
10 issue become. to all ntcnts and pur-
poses. final and pass beyond the iuris-
/.
at common law no matter how long
n term might last n judgment did not
become final until it ended and the
court had no power to direct an eXecu-
tion upon 1t. The inconvenience and in
Justice sometimes occasiOned by this
rule induced the legislature to provide
remedy. 1T enlarged the power of the
court and impaired to II an authority
which Mt common law no court possess
ed statute, she manifest purpose of
n al u 1,.1x
court. Will not be construed to limit that
power unless such q result he unavoida-
bic. There seems no incongruity in so
modifying the common law as to per-
NIT an execution to issue upon judg-
mcnt and at the same time preserving
to the court jurisdiction to correct any
error In the judgment during the con-
tinuance of the term at which 1t was
rendered. The common law Is in force
with us IN so far as it has not been
changed by statute. We have then in
this case Il principle which is firmly i'm
bedded in our system of Jurisprudence.
Which greatly promotes justice If in
deed 1t be not essential 10 its admin
lstration. All courts of whatever de-
gree are prone to err. and it is ex-
pedient and wise to afford the amplest
opportunity to correct any error or in
Justice into which they have fallen
Therefore, the law in its wisdom has
reserved to the courts full power over
their records until the term is ended.
AS was suggested in argument, if the
contention of plaintiff in error be true
cautious and conscientious Judge
would be slow to direct executions to
issue, and thus place it beyond his pow
er to correct even the most glaring
wrong and injustice which he, in the
hurry and press of business, had mad
vertently committed.
We are OF opinion that section 5000
or the Code was designed by the Legis-
lature and has the effect of comforting
upon courts authority to direct eXecu-
IONS to issue upon judgments under
the conditions therein set forth. but
that 1t was not intended and does not
1mDart to such judgments the quality
or nnality so rs to deprive the court
during the term. of the power to cor
rect or, If need be, annul an erroneous
judgment. Having the power it is dim
cult TO conceive of n case which could
more strongly call for. indeed. demand
It's prompt exercise than that under
consideration. for it would be a last
ing reproach upon our Jurisprudence If
wrong so fragrant rs this record dis
closes We're beyond the reach OF RENE
dial justice. Affirmed.
LESLIE V. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
Supreme Court of Michigan.
ADril IS. 1899.
WHERE a STREET Is KEPT IN 4
REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION
AND FIT FOR WAGONS AND CAR
RIAGES. A TOWN is NOT LIABLE
FOR INJURIES TO a BICYCLE
RIDER CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN
THE STREET.
This was an action to recover dam
ages for personal injuries to plaintiff
who was thrown from her bicycle in
consequence of the defective condition
OF the asphalt pavement on Canal