Court Opinion

ID: 9808325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:34:10.449418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:06.510140
License: Public Domain

Allen, J.,
dissenting: The following stipulation appears in the petition, which is the foundation of this proceeding: “It is understood and the petitioners herein join in this proceeding upon'the express condition that after the proper drainage of the said proposed district is effected as set out in this petition, or as may be adopted by the proper authorities as provided for hereunder and by the laws authorizing same, then the' cost of maintaining and keeping the proper drainage in effect shall not exceed 15 cents per acre for each acre included within the bounds of said district.”
This limitation on the cost of maintenance was observed until recently when the drainage commissioners, acting without making any application to the court, and without notice to the landowners, increased the assessment for maintenance from 15 cents, as provided in the petition, to 45 cents. The landowners then brought an action to restrain the collection of the increased assessment, contending that it was illegal, but relief was denied them upon the ground that the stipulation in the petition as to the cost of maintenance was not incorporated in the judgment. See Gibbs v. Drainage Comrs., 175 N. C., 6. The landowners, following the procedure directed in Banks v. Lane, 171 N. C., 505, then *376moved before the clerk to correct the judgment in the proceeding by inserting therein the provision in the petition as to maintenance, alleging that it had been omitted therefrom by mistake. The clerk found as a fact that the provision had been omitted by mistake, and that the landowners did not know of the omission until twelve months before this motion was made and ordered that the judgment be corrected. The drainage commissioners appealed to the judge, who refused to find any facts and dismissed the 'motion, and an appeal was then taken to this Court.
In this condition of the record the moving parties are entitled to have the appeal considered upon the assumption that their allegations are true, and that the provision as to maintenance was omitted from the judgment by mistake, and that they were ignorant of the omission until twelve months ago. If so, can the court afford relief? The power to do so is not denied, and, if controverted, instances of its exercise are numerous. “The court cannot at a subsequent term amend, modify or interfere with a regular judgment regularly entered of record at a preceding term; it can correct, amend, or modify such a one improperly entered,, or enter one which, through accident, mistake of fact, or inadvertence of the court, was not properly entered, or not entered at the former term, when the. court intended to enter and ought to have entered it.” Cook v. Moore, 100 N. C., 296; Beam v. Bridgers, 111 N. C., 269, and cases cited.
It is, however, objected that the landowners have waited too long, and that bonds have been sold and are in the hands of innocent purchasers. The first objection is met by the fact that until recently there has been no effort to collect more than 15 cents, and that the owners were ignorant of the mistake, and, by the law as stated by Smith, C. J., in Brooks v. Stephens, 100 N. C., 299, that “The court may, for the purpose of ascertaining the facts, hear evidence (S. v. Swepson, 83 N. C., 584); may supply an omission (Perry v. Adams, 83 N. C., 266; Walton v. Pearson, 85 N. C., 34) ; and may do this- without regard to lapse of time (Long v. Long, 85 N. C., 415).” The second objection is not before us, as the bondholders are not parties.
As said in Ashe v. Streator, 53 N. C., 257: “It is a mistake to suppose that interests have vested under the records as it stands that prevent an amendment. The persons whose interests are affected are parties to the record. They are bound to know the truth of the transactions as to which the record speaks, to act upon the truth as it happened, and upon the expectation that the record will be made to speak truly. No party has a right to complain, and no other person has an interest that will be prejudiced.” And in Walton v. Pearson, 85 N. C., 48: “It is the duty of every court to supply the omissions of its officers in record*377ing its proceedings, and to see that its record truly sets forth its action in each and every instance; and this it must do upon the application of ■any person interested, and without regard to its effect upon the rights of parties or of third persons; and neither is it open to any other tribunal to call in question the propriety of its action or the verity of its records as made.”
The proper procedure is, I submit, as in Harrison v. Harrison, 106 N. C., 282, and S. c., 109 N. C., 346, to'correct the judgment and to permit the papers to remain on file for the protection of the bondholders. It is not the time now to adjudicate the rights of the purchasers of the bonds, who are not before the court, and without giving the owners of the land to contest their right to claim as innocent purchasers without notice of the mistake. If relief is not granted to the landowners on this motion they are without remedy against an illegal assessment. If they apply to a court of equity they are told to move in the original proceeding, and when they make their motion they are denied a hearing upon the ground that they are bound by the judgments, and that a court will not correct them, although the result of a mistake. One is reminded of the despairing cry of Satan, as depicted by Milton, “which way I fiy is hell.”