Swain v. Naglee
Citations
- 19 Cal. 127
Syllabus
<p>Where on appeal from an order granting a new trial, the Supreme Court affirmed the “judgment” below, and the remittitur was issued, and then, at a subsequent term, respondent moved the Court to amend its judgment by making it read, “ the order of the District Court granting a new trial is affirmed,” instead of “the judgment is affirmed: ” Held, that the motion will be granted, on the principle that Courts have the power to amend clerical errors and enter a judgment nunc pro tunc, when the record itself discloses the error, even though the term has elapsed.</p> <p>Costs of the motion not allowed.</p>
Judges: Baldwin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lovett v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1892-01-15· cited 32×
- Chester v. GravesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1914-05-27· cited 26×
- Castro v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1864-07-01· cited 25×
- Davis v. RudolphCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1947-06-18· cited 20×
- Rogers v. Biggstaff'sCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1917-06-19· cited 20×
- In re Estate of SchroederCalifornia Supreme Court· 1873-07-01· cited 17×
- Fallon v. BrittanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-06-12· cited 17×
- Hegeler v. HenckellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1865-07-01· cited 14×
- Casement v. RinggoldCalifornia Supreme Court· 1865-07-15· cited 12×
- Dreyfuss v. TompkinsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-08-22· cited 10×
- Mayo v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-10-19
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.