State v. Griffin

Appeal — Practice.—No appeal lies from an order refusing to vacate an appealable' order. Amending Records. — The trial court has authority to amend its min utes or records to conform to the fact at any time during the term (Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Logan County. The failure of a court to act or its incorrect action can 'never authorize a nunc pro tunc entry. If a court does not. render judgment, or renders one which is imperfect or improper, it has no power to remedy any of these errors or omissions bjr treating them as clerical misprisions. (Gray v. Brignarditto, .1 Wall. 627; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. 359; Gibson v. Chouteau, ■45 Mo. 171, 100 Am. Dec. 366; Fetters v. Baird, 70 Mo. 389; Woolbridge v. Quinn, 79 Mo. 370; Cassidy v. Woodward, 77 Iowa, 355, 42 N W. 319; Garrison v. People, 6 Neb. 274.) It is well settled that the court cannot correct the judgment which was in fact rendered after the term is passed, the power to •change or amend the judgment then being confined to the •court having appellate jurisdiction. (Freeman oh Judgments, ■sec. 70; Church on Habeas Corpus, sec. 377; Ex parte Lange, .18 Wall. 163; Tweeds v.. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 599, 19 Am. Rep. '211; Stannard v. Hubbell, 123 N: Y. 520, 25 N. E. 1084.) It is certain that proceedings for the. amendment of judgments •ought never to be permitted to become revisory or appellate in 'their nature; ought never to be the means of modifying or enlarging the judgment or the judgment record, so that it shall •express something which the court did not pronounce, even although the proposed amendment embraces-matter which ougEt «clearly to have been so pronounced. (McLean v. Stewart, 21 ÍN Y. Super. Ct. 472; Huían County v. Robertson, 47 Tex. 222; Turner v. Christy, 50 Mo. 145; Divining v. Burkhardt, 34 Wrk 585.) The order correcting the minutes was one which the court liad full authority to make; it merely caused the record to speak the truth and supplied an omission made by the clerks The original order being a proper one and within the authority-of the court, it was not error to refuse to set it aside. That a. court, during a term, may alter, revise and revoke as well aa amend its record, in respect to clerical errors, as well as to matters of fact, is so well settled as to'be a rule of action. (Moor& v. Taylor, 1 Idaho, 630-635.) All courts, from the highest to the lowest, whose proceedings are preserved in any species of record, or memorial, have the power and authority to mako such corrections therein as truth and justice require and the-rules of law permit; this being inherent, belongs to a court more as such, and does not depend upon a statutory ground of jurisdiction. (1 Black on Judgments, sec. 161; 1 Bishop on. Criminal Procedure, secs. 906, 907.) The record may be-amended so as to make it speak the truth. (Rodriquez v. State„ 32 Tex. Cr. Rep. 259, 22 S. W. 978; In re Wright, 134 H. S. 136, 10' Sup. Ct. Rep. 487; State v. Leftwich, 46 La. Ann. 1194, 15 South. 411; State v. Harris, 39 La. Ann. 1105, 3 South. 344; People v. Bamario, 84 Cal. 484-486, 24 Pac. 283; Merrill v^ Kaulback, 158 Mass. 328, 33 N E. 515; State v. Blake, 5 Wyo^ 107, 38 Pac. 355; Sullivan v. Hume (Cal.), 33 Pae. 1121; Franklin v. State, 28 Ala. 9; Holman v. State, 79 Ga. 159, 4-S. E. 8.)