Case Name: COCHRAN v. BAKER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1899-04-03
Citations: 34 Or. 555
Docket Number: 
Parties: COCHRAN v. BAKER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 555–567

Head Matter:
Decided 3 April, 1899.
COCHRAN v. BAKER.
[52 Pac. 520; 56 Pac. 641.]
1. Remittitur — Power oe Supreme Court to Correct Judgment. — Where there is an erroneous judgment at law entered on undisputed facts, the supreme court may remand the case with directions to enter a particular judgment, as was done" in Merchants’ National Bank v. Pope, 19 Or. 35, and Nodine v. Shirley, 24 Or. 250; or, if a judgment is manifestly excessive, by an inspection of the record, and the amount thereof is apparent, the court may affirm the judgment on penalty of a new trial, unless the excess is remitted, as in the case of Flore v. Ladd, 29 Or. 528.
2. Unauthorized Contract by Agent — Liability—Form oe Action. — An agent who makes a contract on behalf of his principal in excess of his authority is, on the repudiation of the contract by the principal, liable thereon, though he made no false representations as to his authority, since he impliedly warranted that he was empowered to make the contract. The action will be in contract rather than in tort.
3. Release oe Surety by Premature Payment. — The payment of an installment on a building contract in advance of the time provided by the contract discharges the surety on the contractor’s bond against mechanics’ liens only to the extent of such payment.
4. Mechanic’s Liens — Nonlienable Items. — A mechanic’s lien is not void in toto because the statement of account on which it is based included nonlienable items, where they were included without improper motives, and were small in amount, and capable of being segregated.
5. Evidence — Admissions in Oeeer oe Compromise. — Admissions of a party, not made when a compromise was under consideration, are admissible against him.
From Marion : George H. Burnett, Judge.
Action by P. A. Cocliran, F. A. Ford, and J. H. Mack, against J. E. Baker, to recover damages for the breach of an implied warranty of authority to sign a certain bond. Defendant appeals from a judgment against him. Before the final hearing respondents moved for permission to correct a mistake in the judgment, and offered to remit an excess that had been inadvertently entered in their favor.
Motion Overruled. Judgment Modified.
Decided 14 March, 1898.
On Motion to Correct Record.
This is an offer by plaintiffs to remit the excess of their judgment over and above the amount demanded, viz., the sum of $115.81, and a motion for leave to apply to the court below to correct a mistake in its record, which it is insisted was inadvertently made.
Mr. A. G. Hough for the motion.
Messrs. J. A. Carson and D. C. Sherman, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It is generally conceded that a trial court at all times possesses inherent power to amend its judgments, orders, and decrees by a nunc pro tunc entry, so as to cause them to conform to the proceedings had therein, and make them speak the truth, provided no rights of third persons have intervened, and such correction can be made by a mere inspection of the record, or by reference to some memorandum of the trial, made at the hearing thereof by the court, or from the pleadings on file, without resorting to evidence aliunde: Elliott, App. Proc. § 209; 1 Black, Judgm. § 155; 1 Freeman, Judgm. § 71; Douglas County Road Co. v. Douglas County, 5 Or. 406; Harvey's Heirs v. Wait, 10 Or. 117; Ladd v. Mason, 10 Or. 308; Carter v. Koshland, 12 Or. 492 (8 Pac. 556); Nicklin v. Robertson, 28 Or. 278 (42 Pac. 993, 52 Am. St. Rep. 790). While in some instances it has been held that a trial court loses all jurisdiction over its judgment when an appeal therefrom has been perfected, numerous respectable authorities can be cited in support of the doctrine that such court, notwithstanding the appeal, retains plenary power over the record of its judg ments and decrees, and may correct it in the manner indicated: 2 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 231, and notes; Elliott, App. Proc. § 541; 1 Black, Judgm. § 162, and cases cited. But, if it be conceded that the trial court possesses such power, there is no necessity, in the case at bar, of any action on its part; for if the cause was referred to a referee, who took the testimony and made findings of fact and law therefrom which were approved by the court, or if the action were tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, resulting in an erroneous judgment in law, and there is no dispute as to the facts, this court has power to modify the judgment complained of, and, having done so, may remand the cause to the lower court, with directions to enter a particular judgment instead of ordering a new trial: Elliott, App. Proc. § 564, 567; Merchants' National Bank v. Pope, 19 Or. 35 (26 Pac. 622); Nodine v. Shirley, 24 Or. 250 (33 Pac. 379). So, too, if it is manifest that an excessive judgment has been rendered, which is predicated upon an erroneous verdict, and this court, from an inspection of the record, is able to segregate the excess from the amount so found by the jury, it may, on condition that the respondent remits the excess, affirm the judgment for the balance ; otherwise a new trial will be ordered. Elliott, App. Proc. § 570; Mackey v. Olssen, 12 Or. 429 (8 Pac. 357); Fiore v. Ladd, 29 Or. 528 (46 Pac. 144). The excess of the judgment being ascertainable from an inspection of the pleadings, this court is competent to make the proper correction, without ordering a new trial; but, inasmuch as other alleged errors are assigned in the notice of appeal, a trial of the cause upon the merits will be necessary, in view of which we have concluded to deny the motion, with leave to reargue it upon such trial; and it is so ordered.
Motion Overruled.