The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-12-16
FIX OWN BLUNDER
Supreme Court Decides 1t Can
Correct Mistake.
One That Resulted in Appeal of
Big Case.
ERROR OF A CLERK.
to Notice That Part
of Action Was Withdrawn.
Railroad Controversy That Is
Awaited With Interest.

Awaited WIN interest.
| When a great and powerful body
like the supreme court of state
makes a mistake, it finds it hard work
| to back up.
The supreme court of Kansas made
mistake. Or possibly it would be
more accurate to say that one of the
clerks Of the court made a mistake. In
drafting a journal entry of judgment,
the court was made to decide certain
point which has been withdrawn from
the consideration of the court after
the case was filed.
On this palpable legal error, the de-
feated party in the lawsuit promptly
appealed to the supreme court of the
United States, and would certainly
have secured a reversal of the case on
| the error.
Then the question arose as to
whether the court can correct its own
mistake after the decision had been
appealed. Today, in a long written
opinion, the court decided that 1t
could.
The case is that of the Larabee
Flour Mills vs. the Missouri Pacific
railway. 1t is an important case, and
one which railroad men all over the
country are watching, because 1t in
socfations to dictate rules to the rail-
roads of the country. The Missouri
Pacific refused to furnish cars to the
Larabee Mills because the mills had
violated some Of the car service asso-
citation rules. The mills asked the su--
preme court for writ of mandamus
to compel the railroad company to
furnish cars. After commissioner
had taken testimony, the Larabee
Mills filed with the court document
reading as follows:
1.-THE plaintiff respectfully with
draws from the consideration OF the
court that part of its application for
the writ of mandamus to compel the
defendant to issue certain bills Of lad
ing, leaving as the one issue to be tried
the resumption of switching service by
the defendant over the transfer track
of the plaintiff
court, however, the clerk drew the
judgment to correspond with tho
original alternative writ, overlooking
the withdrawal of certain matters
P. Waggener, attorney for the Mis-
souri, Pacific, quickly perceived the
error, and fled an appeal with the
United States supreme court.
Then the Larabee mills filed a mo-
ton with the court to correct the
Judgment-in other words. to cut the
ground out from under the feet of the
Missouri Pacific appeal.
This motion to correct judgment
was argued in the supreme court on
December 2. and today the eupreme
court decided that it had authority to |
make the correction. The syllabus Of !,
the court says:
al. Clerical mistakes in the record |
of a judgment rendered in an original |
proceeding in this court may be cor
rected to the end that the record may
speak the truth after the lapse Of the |
term, after the proceedings in error |
to review judgment have been insti- |
tuted in the supreme court of the |
United States, and Notwithstanding q |
bond has been filed.
"2. Such corrections may be made
on the motion Of an interested party |
ever the mistakes are brought to its
In commenting on the case, the
opinion of the court says:
"It is the dut Of the clerk to enter
judgments of the court upon the rec
ord The court does not formulate
them. In this instance the only speci-
fic direction given as that a per-
enptory rit should issue. In making
UP the record, the clerk inadvertently
passed over the findings of fact, the
plaintiffs withdrawal and the opinion
Of the court as guides, and followed
the petition and the alternative writ.
a mistake was made.
and matters not a part of the judg-
ment were written into the record as
features of 1t.
"The fact that a proceeding is now
pending In the Supreme court of the
United States to review the Judgment
does not deprive this court of its
power to expunge from its records the
mistakes of its recording officer. The
conduct of the court itself Is not a sub
ect of modification. The only pur-
pose of this motion is that the conduct
If the court may be truthfully ex-
libited, and it may be surmised that
he reviewing court has little concern
or matters which were not ad5udt-
lated. II
Upon examination of the clerks |
entry the court discovers that 1t con- {
aims matter not in accord with the {
Judgment to which the motion does /
lot refer. The alternative writ COM 1
handed that the defendant resume it's /
ervice to the plaintiff upon demand 6
nd upon the payment of the hereto i
ore customary charges therefore, {
1.-THE determination of the court
vas that the defendant should serve
he plaintiff as 1t does all other indus
# Judgment, however, through the
of the clerk, follows
he alternative writ, and hence is in
correct
..The defendant claims that in conse-
uence of the allowance OF the motion
should be awarded the cost of its
roceeding in error in the supreme court
f the United States The petition for !
he writ of error and the assignments
f error in that proceeding show that {
was not undertaken upon the sole
asis of the matter enormously incor-
GRATED in the record of Judgment On !
he other hand, numerous grounds of
rror are laid not affected by the cor
ection of the record, and no purpose
0 abandon the further prosecution of
he cause in the supreme court of the
United States because OF the correction
f the record has been indicated. There
pre- the claim is disallowed.