Case Name: Gulf Coast Stevedoring Co. v. Gibbs
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1920-10
Citations: 124 Miss. 139
Docket Number: No. 21401
Parties: Gulf Coast Stevedoring Co. v. Gibbs.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Gulf Coast Stevedoring Co. v. Gibbs.
[86 South. 897.
No. 21401.]
Appeal and Eebob. Motion granted to continue case until trial court could correct record involved.
Where a motion is made to continue a case ponding on appeal until the trial court can, at the next term thereof, correct a part of the record, a continuance will be granted if it appears that possibly such correction can be made, though such power to correct may be doubtful or uncertain. In the present case this court reserves decision as to such power until the court below has acted on the motion and its action brought up for consideration.
Appeal from circuit court of Harrison county.
Hun. D. M. Graiiam, Judge.
Action by George Gibbs against the Gulf Coast Stevedoring Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. On motion for continuance.
Motion sustained.
See, also, 86 So. 763.
White & Ford, for appellant.
Gex, Waller & Morse, for appellee.
No brief found in the record for either side.

Opinion:
Ethridge, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The motion for a continuance requests the continuance of the case until the circuit court, when it convenes in regular session, may pass upon the question as to whether the instruction which we held in a former opinion a judge could not correct by a proceeding in vacation may be corrected in regular term time. See 86 So. 582.
It appears from the application for a continuance here that a motion has been made and is pending in the circuit court for a correction of the instruction referred to in the former opinion. A copy of the motion in the circuit court is attached to the motion here. The question as to the power of the circuit court to correct an instruction, which was filed and became a part of the record during a term of court, at a subsequent term on motion, is one not free from difficulty. The'motion is not sufficiently briefed for us to reach a conclusion on that point satisfactorily, so we will pretermit a decision of this question until the facts upon the motion are passed upon in the court below, and will then review the action of the court on the motion as well as on the principal case. Of course, if it should develop that the instruction was altered after the term of court in which it was filed and became a part of the record, there would be no difficulty in the case. As the next regular term of the circuit court is due to be held shortly, we will continue the case until the first sitting of this division of the supreme court in May, 1921, and then will pass upon the question in the light of such developments as the evidence on the motion may present.
Biostmned.