TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ballen v. Farnsworth

Ballen v. Farnsworth, 1 Thompson 84 (1851)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Tennessee Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1851
Judges
Totten
Citations
1 Thompson 841 Shan. Cas. 58
Headnotes
PRACTICE. Power of Court over judgment after close of term. 1. After the close offhe term at which a judgment is rendered, a Cour^ can only amend the same by matter of record. (3) (But see the code 2877 et seq). SAME. Matter of record, what is. 2. An opinion of the Supreme Court filed in the cause in which it was rendered, is in the nature of a record. (3) SAME. Matter of Record, what is not. 3. The rough minutes of the judge are not matter of record; and to amend the record in a cause by them after the close of the term, is ' error. (3) (Butsee the Code, 2877, et seq.)
Summary
Sneed moved to remand this cause to the Circuit' Court, to the end that an entry of record disposing of a motion to dismiss for champtrey might be suplied. He stated that the record below did not show the fact, but that the rough minutes of the Court did.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Totten

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Totten J;

The motion here is to remand the cause to have the record amended.

This cannot be done. The question is similar. to that in a case recently decided by us at Nashville. (1) There a judgment was entered by mistake for an amount different from that found by the jury. At the next term it was amended by the rough minutes and the judges notes. This we held to be error, and the judgment was reversed.

After the term, the Court has no power over the record, except to amend by matter of record. The farthest this Court has ever gone was to amend an entry made by mistake, by a written opinion of this *85 Court filed in the cause (2) we held that the opinion being filed by the requirement of: the statute, was in the nature of a record. But the notes of a circuit judge are not in the nature of a record, being mere parol proof and evidence in pais. [3]

Williams v. Tenpenny, 11 Humph. 176 .

Crutchfield v. Stewart, 1 Humph. 380 , and the cases there cited by the Council for the motion.

(3) See McNew’s Executor v. -, Supra Witty. Griggsley, In fra; Farris v. Kilpatrick, 1 Humph. 379 ; Ridgway v. Word, 4 Humph. 430 ; Blake v. Dum, 5 Humph. 578 .

But now, see the Code, 2877, 2878, 2879. The Supreme court will remand for amendment, when; Wilson v. Smith, 5 Yerg. 379 , 406; Stovall v. Bowers, 10 Humph. 560 ; McCaudless v. Polk, 10 Humph. 617 , 620, 621, when not, where - the amendment was not, and might not he asked for in the Court below. Cain v. Kusey, 1 Yerg. 443 .

Where the amendment can be made in the Supreme Court. Overton v. Crabb, 4 Hayw. 109 , Contra, Smith v. Carden, 1 Swan, 28 ; See also Huff v. Lake, 9 Humph. 137 , 139, See also Calhoun v. Sillard, 4 Hayw. 307 . But now the amendment may be made in the Supreme Court where it is in furtherance of the judgment. Bank of Tennessee v. Martin, Infra.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1902: 11903: 11905: 11916: 11933: 11939: 21952: 12001: 12004: 22019: 12020: 12021: 119022026peak 1939 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Turner v. Commissioner IRSNo. 03-3173 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2004)
  2. Kimbell v. United States371 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2004)
  3. Haseltine v. Shepherd59 A. 1025 (Me. 1905)
  4. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Courtney106 F.2d 277 (10th Cir. 1939)
  5. Clardy v. Clardy136 S.W.2d 526 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939)
  6. Grigsby v. Grigsby61 S.W.2d 605 (Ky. Ct. App. 1933)

Most recent

  1. People v. ThompsonNo. C090913 (Cal. Ct. App. June 8, 2021)
  2. Hardwick Smith Johnson v. Nancy Singleton Case and Deborah A. McGeeNo. 19-1018 (W. Va. June 15, 2020)
  3. Bardill v. Owners Insurance CompanyNo. 1:18-cv-03319 (D. Colo. Sept. 30, 2019)
  4. Turner v. Commissioner IRSNo. 03-3173 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2004)
  5. Kimbell v. United States371 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2004)
  6. Krieger v. Gast179 F. Supp. 2d 762 (W.D. Mich. 2001)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list