Court Opinion

ID: 9600339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:26:04.290665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:50.456688
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ADAIR:
I dissent.
In 18 C.J.S. at page 281 it is said:
“Coram nobis. Literally ‘Before us ourselves, (the king, L e., in the king’s or queen’s bench).’ The name given to a writ of ancient origin, the writ of error on judgments of the court of king’s (or queen’s) bench, so called from that clause in the-old forms which described the record and process as remaining ‘before us’ (quae coram nobis resident) that being the style-of the court; also applied to writs of error directed to another branch of the same court, for example, from the full bench to-the court at nisi prius; and distinguished from ‘coram vobis/
“Coram vobis. Literally ‘Before you.’ The name given to a writ of ancient origin, a writ of error directed by a court of review to the court which tried the cause, to correct an error in fact, and distinguished from ‘coram nobis’ see supra.”
That such writs are neither novel, mysterious nor unknown to our practice or procedure see: State v. Hales, 124 Mont. 614-616, 230 Pac. (2d) 960; State ex rel. Zumwalt v. District Court, 127 Mont. 607, 258 Pac. (2d) 749.