Chafee & Co. v. Rainey

Citations

• 21 S.C. 11
• 1884 S.C. LEXIS 66

Syllabus

<p>1. The concluding order of a Circuit decree was directly contrary to the whole tenor of the decree. Upon the matter being brought to the judge’s attention by a letter from the attorney of the losing party, the judge wrote to the clerk of court, directing a change in the order, stating that the concluding sentence as written was an error. Held, that it was a mere clerical error, which the Circuit judge could correct on an ex parte application, and that the act of the clerk under the order of the court was the act of the court itself.</p> <p>2. A judge may render a decree in a cause heard before him in one Circuit, after he has entered upon the duties of another term in another Circuit; and so, too, he may then direct the correction of mere clerical errors in a judgment rendered by him on a previous Circuit.</p> <p>3. If, at the time of levy, a condition of things exist entitling defendant to homestead, he may properly claim it. Thus, where judgment was obtained against the head of a family, and he afterwards ceased to be such, but again, and before levy made, married a wife, he is entitled to his homestead exemption as against such judgment.</p> <p>4. This case distinguished from Pender v. Lancaster, 14 S. C., 25, and Jones v. Miller, 17 S. O., 380, and Pender v. Lancaster explained and limited.</p>