¶1The due-bill copied in the record states it is dated and due June 24th, 1874. This is no part of the record. The complaint avers it is dated and due January 24th, 1874. We must be governed by this. The,complaint declares on a due-bill due January 24th, 1874, for $606.70, with credits, August 24th, 1874, $150, and February 26th, 1876, $50. Judgment was rendered by nil dicit, without the intervention of a jury, on 23d February, 1878, for five hundred and ninety-sis 65-100 dollars — $596.65. The true amount then due, by calculation, was five hundred and seventy 69-100 dollars — $570.69. This was a mere clerical error, and would have been amended nunc pro tunc, on a motion in the court below. We here reverse and render the judgment, awarding to the plaintiff the sum of five hundred and seventy 69-100 dollars damages, as of February 23d, 1878, the date of the judgment in the court below, which sum will draw interest from that date. — Code of 1876, § 3946; Wade v. Kelly, 2 Stew. & P.443; 1 Brick. Dig. 82, §§ 180 et seq. Let the appellant pay the costs of the appeal.
63 Ala. 334
Smith v. Kennedy
Decided December 15, 1879
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1879-12-15
<p>Action on Promissory Note, or Due-Bill. •'</p> <p>1. When note is notpart of record. — In an action on a promissory note, which, as copied in the transcript by the clerk, but without boing made a part of the record by bill of exceptions, is variant from the note described in the complaint, this court will not look to it for any purpose, but will be governed by the averments of the complaint.</p> <p>2. Amendment of judyment, by correcting error in■ calculation of interest. —On appeal from a judgment by nil dicii, in an action on a promissory note, a clerical misprision in the calculation of interest, being amendable nunc pro tunc, on motion, in the court below, will be amended by this court' at the cost of the appellant, and the amended judgment affirmed.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1879-12-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1900
3 state decisions
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 →