San Joaquin Land & Water Co. v. West

California Supreme Court Aug 18, 1893 No. No. 18113Published

Before: Garoutte

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the clerk's inclusion of an interest provision in a money judgment was a proper ministerial act under the law, rather than a clerical mistake, and therefore the trial court correctly denied the motion to amend the judgment.

Issues

Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to amend a judgment to remove an interest provision allegedly inserted by clerical mistake.
Whether the clerk's inclusion of a statutory interest provision in a money judgment constitutes a clerical misprison subject to correction.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rendition of a judgment is a judicial act. Its entering upon the record is merely ministerial.”

“We think it was the duty of the clerk to enter the judgment exactly as it was entered, and his insertion of the interest clause therein was an exercise of a ministerial duty under the law.”

Synopsis

Findings — Rendition of Judgment—Entry of Judgment — Ministerial Act of Clerk.—The decision of the court, consisting of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, given in writing and filed with the clerk, under section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure, amounts in law to a rendition of the judgment, which the clerk can thereafter at any time enter at length in the records of the court as a ministerial act.

Id.—Correction of Clerical Mistake in Entry of Judgment—Lapse of Time. —When a mistake is made by the clerk in the entry of a judgment not authorized by the decision of the court, the error is apparent from the face of the record, and such mistake may be rectified at any time, by reason of the inherent power of the court over its own proceedings, although more than six months have elapsed from the entry of the judgment.

Id. —Making Judgment Bear Interest—Authority of Law—Correct Entry bí Clerk.—The insertion by the clerk of the court in a money judgment entered by him of the words, “ with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the date hereof until paid,” is a proper ministerial act, authorized, by law, although no authority therefor is found in the decision of the court, which should not contain any such adjudication, where there is no issue in the case as to the right of the plaintiff to have interest upon the judgment awarded; and a motion to correct the judgment by striking out such words is properly denied.

Garoutte, J. The present action'involved the title and right of possession to a certain fund of money which was in the custody of the court pending the litigation. Upon the submission of the case the court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment to be entered in accordance therewith. The conclusions of law were: “ Plaintiff is entitled to have and recover a judgment against the defendants, Beecher and Gray, for the sum of $35,861.25, together with its costs in this action.” Subsequently defendants appealed from the judgment and an order denying them a new trial, the judgment and order were affirmed, and the aforesaid sum of money was paid to plaintiff. Thereafter it came to the notice of appellants that the judgment entered included an additional sum as interest, and a motion was made to the court to amend and correct the judgment as entered “by striking out so much thereof as reads as follows: ‘with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the date hereof until paid/ upon the ground that such portion of said judgment was inserted therein by misprison, inadvertence, and mistake, and that the same is not meant or intended to form a part of or be inserted in said judgment; that said judgment is not supported or warranted, but, on the contrary, is expressly contrary and in direct opposition to the decision in writing, and the findings and conclusions of law heretofore made and filed in this action on the fourth day of August, 1890.” The court made an order denying the motion upon the sole ground that it had no jurisdiction to make said amendment, and this appeal is prosecuted from that order.

[347]Under section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the trial of a question of fact is involved, the decision of the court must be given in writing and filed with the clerk, and section 633 requires that in such decision the facts found and the conclusions of law must be separately stated and the judgment upon the decision must be entered accordingly. The “decision” of the court referred to in these sections, when filed, amounts in law tó a rendition of the judgment. As was said in Crim v. Kessing, 89 Cal. 478; 23 Am. St. Rep. 491: “This was the rendition of the judgment which the clerk could thereafter at any time enter at length in the records of the court. The entry of the judgment after it had been rendered by the court is but the ministerial act of the clerk. The judgment when entered becomes the record of what the court has determined, and then becomes as binding upon the parties as if entered immediately upon its rendition. The rendition of a judgment is a judicial act. Its entering upon the record is merely ministerial.” (Freeman on Judgments, sec. 381. See also In re Cook, 77 Cal. 227; 11 Am. St. Rep. 267, and Broder v. Conklin, 98 Cal. 360.)

San Joaquin Land & Water Co. v. West

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief