Law v. Kennedy

Decided November 30, 1876

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1876-11-30

No. 4 October Term, 1876. There was a verdict for plaintiffs followed by an argument for a new trial and on May 31st, 1875, the decision was entered on record as “new trial refused.” On June 8th, 1875, judgment was entered on the verdict. A fi. fa. was issued on June 8 and returned nulla bona ; an alias fi. fa. was issued on Sept. 23, 1875, and a levy made upon real estate of defendants.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1905

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The striking off the entry, ‘New trial refused,’ was merely the correction of a mistake. It was not a rejudgment of the case after the lapse of a term, but merely the correction of a mistake made in the entry of the determination of the court. Although after a judgment in a case the court may not at any lapse of time revise its judgment and reach a different conclusion, it has in its power to correct its own actual mistakes in the entry, or misprisions of its clerks, unless, perhaps, when rights have been acquired under the entry which may be injuriously affected against equity. How far a court may thus go we do not undertake to indicate in what we have said, except so far as the facts of this case justify.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Evans v. Freeman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-11-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The decision of the Court below was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the following opinion delivered on November 30, 1876:

Per Curiam.

¶2The striking off the entry new trial refused was merely the correction of a mistake. It was not a re-judgment of the case after the lapse of a term, but merely the correction of a mistake made in the entry of the determination of the Court. Although after a judgment in a case the Court may not at any lapse of time revise its judgment and reach a different conclusion, it has it in its power to correct its own actual mistakes in the entry or the misprisions of its clerks, unless, perhaps, when rights have been acquired under the entry, which may be injuriously affected against equity. IIow far a Court may thus go, we do not undertake to indicate in what we have said, except so far as the facts of this case justify.

¶3Order affirmed.