Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

189 Tenn. 467

Taylor v. State

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 10, 1949

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 1949-12-10

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1972

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is certainly true that a final decree upon any question involved in a litigation is a final adjudication of that question, and this is so whether that particular question has or has not been discussed in the opinion of the court. But where the decree contains an adjudication of a question neither involved in the litigation nor discussed in the opinion, this court will treat so much of the decree as a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and at any time after final judgment it may be corrected or expunged. Code, sec. 2878. And this upon proper proceeding, must be the fate of the clause of the decree in question here.” 64 Tenn., pp. 594, 595.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including McDade v. McDade

Relies on Polk v. Pledge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-12-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice BurNett

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This ease now comes to us on a motion of the State to correct the judgment finally rendered against Taylor by this Court on January 12, 1949.

¶3Taylor was convicted “of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter” in the Criminal Court of Greene County. He appealed. His conviction was affirmed by an opinion of this Court, filed December 11, 1948, in which it was said: “All assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.”

¶4Through error the Clerk of this Court in drawing the judgment against him entered the judgment that the plaintiff in error was guilty of the ‘ ‘ offense of voluntary manslaughter ’ ’.

¶5Due notice of the motion (Code Section 8723) to amend has been given Taylor by the State. Through counsel he has answered this motion and objects to its correction because it “is complete and regular upon its face” and, therefore, cannot be changed.

¶6We have examined the record in this ease and find in the opinion of this Court that the “judgment of the lower court is affirmed”. That judgment was that he is guilty “of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter.” It thus appears on the face of the record that a mistake was made by the Clerk of this Court in entering the judgment. See Polk v. Pledge, 52 Tenn. 371.

¶7*469Code Section 8722 provides that “every mistake apparent on the face of the record may he corrected by the conrt at any term after final judgment, at the discretion of the court. ’ ’

¶8By Code Section 9925, the opinions of the Justices of the Supreme Court are recognized as a part of the record of the case.

¶9The motion of the State is therefore allowed and a judgment will now be entered that the plaintiff in error is guilty of the “offense of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter as charged,” and shall “undergo confinement in the State Penitentiary for a period of Five (5) years”, and pay the costs of this cause.

All concur.
/189/tenn/467 · .json · Public domain