People ex rel. McCrea v. Quick

Citations

• 92 Ill. 580

Syllabus

<p>1. Amendment—of record, at subsequent term. The court, at a subsequent term, may, from its minutes or other sufficient evidence, enter an order nunc pro tunc correcting a judgment for taxes, so that it will show the real judgment in fact rendered.</p> <p>2. Where, on an application for judgment in the county court for the taxes of the years 1873, 1874 and 1875, judgment was really pronounced for two-thirds of the taxes for each of those years by agreement of the respective counsel, but by mistake was entered for two-thirds of the taxes for the last named year only, it was held, that the court at a subsequent term properly allowed an amendment of the entry of judgment, nunc pro tunc upon an uncontradicted affidavit of the facts, so as to embrace the several years taxes.</p> <p>3. Same—trial on merits on motion to amend record. Where a judgment, by agreement, is pronounced by the court for a less amount of taxes against property than is claimed, but by mistake is entered for only one of three years, on a motion to correct the mistake, it is not error to refuse a trial on the merits as to the taxes due for the omitted years.</p> <p>4. Attorney—when authority to compromise presumed. Where a compromise is made as to a judgment against lots for taxes for a less amount than is claimed, by the county attorney and the counsel for the city and the attorney for the lot owners, upon which judgment js rendered, it will be presumed that the attorneys for the county and city had authority to act for these bodies. Even if they had no such authority, it would afford no ground for setting aside the judgment after its rendition. If the agreement had not been consummated, or if the want of authority had been shown at the term the judgment was pronounced, the court would have refused to carry it out.</p>