Case Name: Whetcroft's Adm'r. vs. Dorsey's Ex'rs.
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1801-10
Citations: 1 H. & J. 164
Docket Number: 
Parties: Whetcroft’s Adm’r. vs. Dorsey’s Ex’rs.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1801.
Whetcroft’s Adm’r. vs. Dorsey’s Ex’rs.
If in debt on judgment, the record of the judgement agrees with the declaration, it is sufficient, on a plea a nul tiel record, though by the book of costs it appears that in the said judgment there has been a mistake in the amount of costs for which the judgment was rendered.
Debt upon a judgment obtained in this court for A ° ° damages and costs. The defendants relied upon the ploa of ml tiel record. The record book, in which the judgment is recorded, and upon which this action is founded, was brought into court, and it appeared ^1!1^ the judgment therein entered was for the precise amount of damages and costs as mentioned in the declaration in this cause, But by the book of costs also produced, in which the taxation of the partial* lars of the costs was made, it appeared, that in the addition thereof there was a mistake of a dollar lesa than the true amount, in the docket entry of the action and judgment, the amount of the costs is the same as mentioned in the record of the judgment, and as declared for by the plaintiff,
Key and Skaaff, for the plaintiff,
Martin, (Attorney General,) Eidgely, Mason and W. Dorsey, for the Defendants.
For the plaintiff it was contended,
1. That if the error was material, and could have been amended on a motion to the court at which the judgment was rendered, it was now too late for the defendants to take advantage of it, since the judgment, as actually rendered, agreed with the one declared on. But that as the error was beneficial to the defendants, they could not have had it amended. For which were cited, 1 L. Maym. 594. 5 Com. Dig, 301. Cro. Car. 437; and 1 Vent. 60.
2. That if the error was a material one the plaintiff could amend his writ and declaration, not under the act of assembly, but under the English statutes, 14 Edivd. III. eh. 6. 8 Hen. VI. eh. 12, and eh. 15. For which were cited, 1 Bae. Jib. 90, 96. 1 Com. Dig. 3ST. 8 Co. 156. Gilb. His. Com. Fleas, 86, 94; and the following cases in the late provincial court, and in this court, Rasin vs. Ricketts, April term 1770; Eeinl- #dlvs. 'Nml'-, October term 1793, and Cawood vs. Green, October term 1794. That it was not too late to amend after mil tiel record pleaded, cited 1 Bac, M. 107, 108. 2 Stra. 846, 954, and Ld. Raym. 669.

Opinion:
The General Court determined that there was a sufficient record of the judgment declared upon, and directed the, judgment to be entered for the debt demanded, together with damages, (being the interest,) and costs.
The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, but at November term 1803, they dismissed their appeal.