Case Name: Frederick Sweetzer and Others vs. John C. Mead and Nelson. B. Nye
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1858-05-05
Citations: 5 Mich. 33
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick Sweetzer and Others vs. John C. Mead and Nelson. B. Nye.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 33–34

Head Matter:
Frederick Sweetzer and Others vs. John C. Mead and Nelson. B. Nye.
The Supremo Court has no authority to amend the record of the Circuit Court sent up on writ of error.
A Circuit Judge may amend his finding, and such amendment is not subject to review.
•A bill of exceptions signed by the Circuit Judge, showing the exceptions to have been properly taken on the trial, is to be presumed properly signed, and within the proper time, though dated several months after the trial and after judgment entered, and though nothing appears in the bill itself, or in the record, to show affirmatively that time was allowed for its preparation and settlement.
Heard May 4th.
Decided May 5th.
JET. J. JBeaJces, for defendants in error,
moved the Court to strike from the record an amendment made by the Circuit Judge to the finding of facts, and also the bill of exceptions. It aj)peared from the papers that the cause was tried at the March Term, 1855, without a jury; that judgment was rendered at the September Term, 1855, and the finding of facts then filed; that the bill of exceptions was signed by 'the Circuit Judge in January, 1856, and an addition made by Mm to the finding of the facts m March following. The bill of exceptions did not show on its face, nor was it stated in the record, that time was allowed for preparing and settling it. It was claimed that the Circuit Judge had no power to ■amend the finding after the term when it was filed, and that the signing of the bill of exceptions after the term was unauthorized, unless time appeared to have, been allowed for its preparation.
E. W. Morgan, for plaintiffs in error.

Opinion:
By the Court:
The question of the propriety of the amendment made by the Circuit Judge to Ms finding of facts, can not be passed upon here. It has been frequently held that a judge may, after the lapse of one or many terms, amend the verdict upon the judge's notes or other proof of the evidence given on the trial, sp as to apply such verdict to the proper counts, for the furtherance of justice. So amendments to bills of exceptions have been made after the lapse of a long time, and judges have been compelled by mandamus to make them where it was shown that they were in accordance with the facts. The amendment here made was entirely within the discretion of the Circuit Judge.— Clark vs. Lamb, 8 Pick. 414; Mathieson's Admrs. vs. Grant's Admr. 2 How. 263.
Besides, this is not a part of our record, but of the record of the Court below; and we have no jurisdiction whatever to amend it. We might have power to compel its correction by that Court, in a proper case, and ón a proper application; but not to amend it ourselves.
As to the other branch of the motion, it appears from the bill that the exceptions were taken at the proper time,— on the trial. All that the record shows afterwards is the signing. The signing, at least until there is showing to the contrary, is evidence that it was done in time, and that the steps preliminary thereto had been regularly taken.
Motion denied.