HICKLIN ,. MARCO.
HICKLIN v. MARCO et aI. (Circuit Court, D. Oregon. November 28, 1894.) No. 1,711.
PRACTICE-CORRECTION Oll' DECREE-CLERICAL ERROR.
Though a court of equity has Dower to correct clerical errors in its decrees at any time, it will no1J interfere to correct what may have been a judicial error; and it will not correct a clerical error in a decree entered two years before the application for correction, by a other than the one to whom such application is made, and subsequently affirmed on appeal.
This was a bill in equity by Lyman T. Hicklin against Henry Marco and others for the redemption of a mortgage. Defendants in their answer, set up a claim for the value of permanent improve ments made by them while in possession of the premises, and the case was heard upon exceptions to this part of the answer. The court allowed the defendants' claim (46 Fed. 424), but otherwise gave judgment for plaintiff. Subsequently, on appeal by defendants as to the amount of the decree, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. 6 C. C. A. 10, 56 Fed. 549. Plaintiff prays an amendment of the decree in so far as it restricted his right of redemption to a one-fourth interest in the mortgaged premises. C. W. Miller and David Goodsell, for plaintiff. Zera Snow, for defendants. BELLINGER, District Judge. The plaintiff petitions for an amendment of the decree herein, rendered more than two years ago. The suit involved the validity of a foreclosure proceeding brought against the plaintiff's ancestor. The plaintiff, having succeeded to an undivided one-fourth interest in the lands sold on such foreclosure, brought this suit against those holding under the foreclosure sale. The court held the foreclosure invalid, for want of jurisdiction upon the service of summons had in the suit, and decreed that the plaintiff might redeem as to his one-fourth interest in the mortgaged premises by payment of the mOTtgage debt. It is claimed that the decree should have been for redemption of the entire property mortgaged, instead of the one·fourth interest belonging to plaintiff; that inasmuch as the plaintiff is required by the decree to pay the entire mortgage debt, and the court was not authorized to decree otherwise, the restriction of the right to redeem to one-fourth of the mortgaged premises is a manifest error, that the court ought to correct on this application. It is within the power of the court to correct clerieal errors in its decrees at any time, and the court is at liberty to ascertain the existence of the alleged error by any satisfactory evidence. The written opinion of the judge, his memoranda upon the docket, and his personal recollection are sufficient to authorize a correction of the entry. In this case the correction is asked for upon the ground that the plaintiff is compelled to redeem from the entire mortgage debt, and consequently is subrogated to all of the rights of the mortgagee, v.64F.no.6-39
and that the decree, in failing to provide for this, necessarily fails to cQnform to what wl1i'J intended' by the court in rendering it. I am satisfied that the, shou,ld have been with what the plaintiff claims, but I am not satisfied that the error complaineq of is a clerical error.' 'It may be a judicial error. If I shall undertake to cor.rect thiil'deeree upon the ground that it does not to my own.',opini()i1 of what the deeree should be, I the the and decrees of my, under]lie.preten.se of. correcting them.. The mere faot ;oferror, if found to ·exist,does not justify an inference that there has been a clerical error in entering the decree. The decree pealln tl,l,e <;lrCUlt counof,appeals, wherethe decree appealed from 'a:ft;lpned IIlore thail, aI',ear and a 'h8:1$ ago. 6 0,,0. 'A. 10, 56 Fed. 54!I., }these been a change intAe Jlldges of since the decree was rendered, indeQf:?ther make,it the' I qt thIS I should hesitate to mterfere ,WIth the such circumstan:ces upon proof, however conclusive, thatth¢re had been a clerical error in entering it. The prayer of the is denied. '
SIDDALL v. BREGY. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. No.3,
, ,A circuit court of
December 4, 18M.)
United Stater;; has no authority to review the judgmentS of the state, courts, and hold their judges 'responsible for faIlure to dir;;charge· their judicial duties.
OF STATE JUDGE.
This action by Theodore W. Sidl1all against the Honorable F. Awedee Uregy.
The plaintiff filed the folloWing statement of claim, viz.: "F. Ame<lee :aregy, the defendant, is one of the judges of the court of comOf the commonwealth for the county of Philadelphia, sworn to mon obey and administer the laws, of the United &tates and of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania without fear or favor. ·His neglect or refusal to do so deprives the state of arepubllcan form of government. He has denied, and now denies, to me, within.his, jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws, commonweal1;h of Pennsylvania and of the United States. espealike of cially of clause 1 of the fOllrteenth article of .the United States constitution. I bring this action to recover, from him reparation In damages therefor in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars. In support of my claim I show that I obtained from the said 'court of common pleas a sUbpoena commanding one M.ary Siddall tQ.'IlPp£>ar and show. cause, if any she had, why a decree Of nullity of a void marriage contract should not be e:lltered of record, said suit being entitled ,'Sl<idall VB. Siddall, Common PleaS No.1, March Term, 1894. No. 5,' and I ask that the records of that suit be made part of this, statement. Said subpHna was based upon a libel bearing the hand and selJI of a magistrate IiUld ;111e signature of a judge as required by law, and in the custody ot of the court. "(1) In or about March, 1894, I exhibited to J l1 dge Bregy, in court, affidavit and evidence that an 'aspOrtation had been made of my libel from among