Case Name: Crutchfield vs. Stewart
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1839-04
Citations: 1 Hum. 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: Crutchfield vs. Stewart.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
Crutchfield vs. Stewart.
Where the clerk of the supreme court entered up a judgment of affirmance in a cause in which the judgment of the court below should have been reversed, and this appeared from the written opinion the court filed amongst the papers in the cause: Held, that the court had the power, at a subsequent term, to correct the judgment so entered by mistake.
The judgment of the circuit court was in favor of the defendant in error, and there was an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to the April term, 1837, of this court. The parties appeared and the cause was heard by this court at that term, and, upon consideration of the errors assigned, it was considered by this court that there was error in the judgment of the court below, and it was ordered that the same be reversed and that the cause be remanded for a new trial. The opinion of the court was in writing and filed among the records of the court, as required by law, by which it fully appeared to the court that the judgment was reversed. This fact was also fully admitted by the counsel for defendant in error. The clerk by mistake entered a judgment of affirmance* contrary to the opinion and order of the court.
The plaintiff in error at the April term, 1838, moved the court to correct the judgment so entered by mistake, so that the same might be in conformity with the opinion of the court as delivered at the hearing of the cause; or, that said judgment should be vacated and stricken out of the record, and that judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff in error, as of the last term of this court.
Totten and M’ Campbell, for plaintiff,
referred to the following authorities to sustain the motion. Wardell vs. Eden, 2 Johns. Cases, 121: Bank of Newburgh vs. Seymour and Smith, 14 Johns. Rep. 219: Lee vs. Curtis, 17 Johns. Rep.: Lansing vs. Lansing, 18 Johns. Rep. 502: Burr vs. Reeves, 1 Johns. Rep. 507: Seaman vs. Drake, 1 Cains’Rep. 9: Close ys, Qillespie, 3 Johns. Rep. 526: Atterbury vs. Smith, 1 Cains’ Rep. 495: Short vs. Coffin, 5 Burr. 2730: 1 Salk. 47,53: Rees vs. Morgan, 3 Term Rep. 349: 5 Taunt. 558: 4 Taunt. 875: 1 Taunt. 221: Usher vs. Dansey, 4 Maulé and Selw. 94: Tully vs. Sparks, 2 Ld. Ray. 1570: Mechanics Bank vs. Min-thorn, 19 Johns. Rep. 245: 3 Bl. Com. on Amendments: Phelps vs. Ball, l Johns. Cases, 31: Union Turnpike Company vs. Jenkins, 1 Cains’ Rep. 391, 583: Clements vs. Waller, 4 Burr. Rep. 2156.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Let the judgment be corrected.