Fay v. Stubenrauch (1904) · DecisionDepot

Fay v. Stubenrauch

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jan 12, 1904 No. S.F. No. 2838.Published

Before: Lorigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court retains jurisdiction to correct clerical errors in its records even after an appeal has been taken, provided the amendment does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

Issues

Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to correct a clerical error in a decree after an appeal has been filed.
Whether the correction of a clerical error in a decree renders an appeal moot when the appellant is no longer affected by the judgment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whenever it is apparent upon the face of the record, that the error to he corrected consists of a clerical misprision, the court has always inherent power to correct it.”

“Nor is the right of the lower court to amend suspended or impeded by an appeal, where an amendment does not affect any substantial rights of the appellant”

“It is true that the court by the appeal loses jurisdiction of the cause, for the purposes of the appeal, but it does not lose jurisdiction of its records.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Napa County. E. D. Ham, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LORIGAN, J.

This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage executed to plaintiff by defendants, H. & Y. Stubenranch. It was alleged in the complaint that the other defendants, James O’Reilly and one Mrs. M. Quinn, claimed some interest in the mortgaged premises; that the said Mrs. M. Quinn was in possession thereof, cutting and destroying trees, and threatening to continue to do so, and an injunction was prayed, prohibiting her from the commission of Such acts. Summons was issued in said cause, and served on all the de

[574]

fendants, including Mrs. M. Quinn, and the defaults of all the defendants, including said Mrs. M. Quinn, were duly entered. -

Thereafter a decree of foreclosure was entered against the said H. & Y. Stubenrauch, James O'Reilly, and one

Mrs. A. M. Quinn,

foreclosing all their interest in said' premises, and as to the said

Mrs. A. M. Quinn,

enjoining her from cutting and destroying any trees upon said premises.

This decree was duly entered on April 24, 1901. On May 16, 1901, an appeal was taken by

Mrs. A. M. Quinn

from said decree.

On May 21, 1901, after such appeal was taken, the court,” on motion of the attorney for plaintiff, made an order reciting that there had been a clerical misprision in the decree of foreclosure in the insertion of the initial “A” before the initial “M” in the name of

Mrs. M. Quinn,

the defendant in said action, and ordered the decree corrected by striking out such initial “A” wherever it appeared therein. A stipulation in.the transcript shows that such correction was made by the clerk as directed by the court. The effect of the order is, that the decree of foreclosure now stands against Mrs. M. Quinn, and the name of

Mrs. A. M. Quinn

nowhere appears therein.

Fay v. Stubenrauch

AI Brief

Synopsis

LORIGAN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief