Court Opinion

ID: 9444007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:37:47.480401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:40.642880
License: Public Domain

*29DENMAN, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent from this decision because it admits that the parties stipulated to an amendment of the findings and yet compels the entertaining of the appeal without the stipulated amendment. A defect in the court’s memory does not void a stipulation. Such voiding is a denial of justice. The court owes the parties the duty to call them before it, to cure the court’s defective memory.
So far as this member of the court is concerned, his memory is that the parties stipulated that, upon the amendment, the judgment was to be affirmed, thus saving the court the labor of the consideration and determination of the appeal and the parties their costs, attorneys’ fees and effort in briefing and arguing it.