Case Name: DOE v. WATERLOO MIN. CO.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of California
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1894-03-22
Citations: 60 F. 643
Docket Number: No. 183
Parties: DOE v. WATERLOO MIN. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 60
Pages: 643–643

Head Matter:
DOE v. WATERLOO MIN. CO.
(Circuit Court, S. D. California.
March 22, 1894.)
No. 183.
Federal COURTS — Mistake in Decrees — Correction after Term.
Mistake of counsel, whereby a decree is entered which does not conform to the opinion of the circuit court, cannot he corrected by that court after the lapse of the term.
Bill by John W. Doe against the Waterloo Mining Company. On motion to amend the decree.
Daniel Titus, for complainant.
A. IT. Ricketts, for defendant.

Opinion:
ROSS, District Judge.
By mistake of counsel, the decree entered in this case did not, in some important respects, conform to the opinion and decision of the court theretofore rendered and entered of record; but the fact was not brought to the attention of the court until long after the lapse of the term at which the decree was entered, when a motion was made on behalf of the defendant in the suit to so amend the decree as to make it conform to the decision of the court. The moving party, I think, will have to look for the correction sought to the appellate court, where the case is now pending; for it is the established law that in the federal courts the power does not exist, after the lapse of the term at which a judgment or decree is entered, to so change or modify it as to substantially vary or affect it in any material thing. Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410; Sibbald v. U. S., 12 Pet. 491. Motion denied.