Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Stew. 492

Hefflin v. McMinn

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1830

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1830-01-15

This was a writ of error from Pickens Circuit Court, sued by Hefflin to reverse a judgment rendered in that Court against him by McMinn. The action was debt, to recover on a promissory note. In the record there appeared a writ and declaration, and at the regular trial term, on the first of October, 1828, a judgment by default for @88 60, the amount of the note, and @10 50 damages. The writ of error was sued out to reverse this judgment, on the 16th of October, 1828.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is insisted that the amendment made in the sheriff's return by leave of the Circuit Court, cannot cure the defect in the judgment so as to prevent a reversal. We are, however, of a different opinion. Courts have extended great latitude to ministerial officers, in permitting them to amend their returns, so as to conform to the facts of the case. This prevents injury from casual mistakes, in which the parties have no agency, and by which they should not be prejudiced. But completely to effectuate this purpose, it is necessary that the return, when amended, should relate back to the period at which it was to have been made. In the present case, the plaintiff in error knew at the time he sued out his writ of error to reverse the judgment, that the original process had been served upon him; he had all the advantage of notice from such service; and to permit him to reverse for the clerical mistake of the Sheriff, would be to allow him to convert that which did not affect his rights into a means of injustice to the opposite party, who had nothing to do with the omission complained of.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Employer's Reinsurance Corp. v. Brock

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1830-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1934

4 state decisions

2018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By JUDGE WHITE.

¶1It is insisted that the amendment made in the sheriff’s return by leave of the Circuit Court, cannot cure the defect in the judgment so as to prevent a reversal. We are, however, of a different opinion. Courts have extended great latitude to ministerial officers, in permitting them to amend their returns, so as to conform to the facts of the case. This prevents injury from casual mistakes, in which the parties have no agency, and by which they should not be prejudiced. But completely to effectuate this purpose, it is necessary that the return, when amended, should relate back to the period at which it was to have been made. In the present case, the plaintiff in error knew at the time he sued out his writ of error to reverse the judgment, that the original process had been served upon him; he had all the advantage of notice from such service; and to permit him to reverse for the clerical mistake of the Sheriff, would be to allow him to convert that which did not affect his rights into a means of injustice to the opposite party, who had nothing to do with the omission complained of.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/2/stew/492 · .json · Public domain